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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Joseph Wamback  Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation
Lorne Goldstein  Partner, Abergel Goldstein & Partners, LLP, As an Individual
Howard Bebbington  Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Boissonnault, for putting this forward.

I agree with Mr. McKinnon that it's just a way to enforce the will of the committee. We tried to do this in the House. Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent.

I don't think this is a political issue. Let's not politicize it. Let's not make it partisan. This is a wrong that happened in this committee in the way that we treated a witness, and it was not the right thing to do.

The space here in this committee is for Canadians to come forward and give their testimony and share their experiences, and to victimize somebody like that is quite deplorable. I think it does not belong in Hansard. I think that we need to keep this space open for Canadians, and doing so, striking this from the record will ensure that the safety of this space has been restored.

I absolutely agree with this motion and I'll be supporting it.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

I have Mr. Boissonnault and then Ms. Ramsey.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate that colleagues acknowledge the fact that we did refer this matter to the House of Commons and, because of the number of concurrence motions, over 600, it wouldn't have been possible for us to get this on the Order Paper within the days that we have left in Parliament.

When I rose to get unanimous consent, it was very clear from, at least one section of the House, that unanimous consent was not going to be given. I think it's really important that part of our job here as parliamentarians in this committee is to give a voice to the voiceless, people who aren't yet represented in Parliament. I think it's really important.

If we want to talk about a stunt, a stunt is printing up a manifesto that's illegal in another part of the country and walking it into a committee so that you have it as an attack on a witness, as opposed to what some people claimed was an emotional response. I want to know which Conservative staffer printed that thing up so that Mr. Cooper could have it. That's a really egregious thing to bring into the justice committee.

It is very important for Canadians to know that we are here to stand up for their interests. It is unacceptable for a member to attack witnesses who come here to provide their testimony. It is time for anything quoted from the manifesto from Christchurch, New Zealand, and the section of the recording pertaining to those comments, to be stricken from the records.

This is simply closing the loop.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you.

Ms. Ramsey is next, and then Mr. Paul-Hus.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Mr. Chair, throughout this study we've been talking to a lot of groups who feel that they're not safe online, that they're not safe because online hate is turning into real-world hate, violence and murders. In Christchurch, that's exactly what happened.

I don't know what the intention of Mr. Cooper was in bringing this into the public record initially, but what I haven't heard from my Conservative colleagues today are the reasons they think it should still be part of the record. For the life of me, I can't imagine what those could be. Why should this manifesto of hate, with this person's name attached, be part of the public record? Why is it so important to Conservatives that we leave this on the record?

I can tell you that Muslims in my community are horrified and frightened, and legitimately so, because of what happened in Quebec City and Christchurch.

What I have yet to hear from the Conservatives in this very baffling “this is a stunt” type of rhetoric is what the argument is to leave it on the public record. How does this help the safety of Canadians, online or anyplace else, or as a witness at this committee?

For the life of me, I can't imagine or fathom what that reason would be. I encourage you to dig into your conscience to say that this should be stricken from the record, because this individual's name should not have been brought into Canadian media. It's shameful that the Conservatives did that. They have apologized. Mr. Cooper and your leader have apologized, and now you're going to sit here at this committee and try to still keep this on the public record.

That's shameful. It really is.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

First, if this was not a political game, our meeting could have stayed in camera, but that's fine. I know that everyone in communications is waiting to see whether the Conservatives are going to say things that will get them into trouble. The ultimate objective of Mr. Boissonnault's motion is to try and trip us up.

I think that everything has been said. Let's get the text of the motion.

Thank you.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Great.

I don't have anybody left on the speakers list.

Mr. Clerk, could you read us the final motion, or do you want me to do it?

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Chair, I'd like a recorded vote.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

You would like a recorded vote.

Basically, as I understand it, it would be:

That, in relation to the statements of Michael Cooper, Member for St. Albert — Edmonton, to the witness Faisal Khan Suri, President of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, at the meeting of Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the name of the perpetrator of the massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, and any quoted portion of his manifesto, be struck from the Committee’s public record, including the Evidence and audio recording.

Now we've been asked for a recorded vote. We will have a recorded vote. I'll turn it over to the clerk.

9:40 a.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Does anyone have any other business before we move to the panel of witnesses? If not, I'm going to suspend the meeting until the witnesses are ready, which should be in the next 15 minutes or so.

I'd ask that everyone be back at 9:55.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

We will resume this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as we continue our study of Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

It is a great pleasure to be joined by this panel of witnesses who are here to share their expertise with us today.

We are joined by Mr. Joseph Wamback, the founder and chair of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation. Welcome.

June 13th, 2019 / 9:55 a.m.

Joseph Wamback Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation

Thank you.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

We are joined as well by Mr. Howard Bebbington, the Chair of the Policy Review Committee of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. Welcome.

We are also joined by Mr. Lorne Goldstein, a Partner at Abergel Goldstein & Partners, LLP, as an individual. Welcome.

9:55 a.m.

Lorne Goldstein Partner, Abergel Goldstein & Partners, LLP, As an Individual

Thank you.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

We will take the witnesses in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

Mr. Wamback, the floor is yours, sir.

9:55 a.m.

Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation

Joseph Wamback

Thank you.

I'm Joe Wamback.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I want to thank you for for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

I am the chair and founder of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation, which has been in existence since the year 2000. We have almost two decades of experience in dealing with victims of extreme violence from coast to coast, from Victoria to St. John's.

I've also partnered with the health sciences psychology department at York University so that we can create a greater understanding of psychopathy and extreme violence among individuals in Canada and the resulting trauma to victims and their families. We also sponsor psychological counselling for victims of extreme violence throughout the country.

I am here today in support of Bill C-266. I believe it is a win-win situation for all involved. The bill maintains the judicial independence that we all seek in Canadian society. Secondly, it prevents the continued revictimization of those who have suffered so much through acts of horrific crime in Canada.

We're not dealing with a large constituency. We're dealing with a handful of individuals who have created such devastation in Canadians' lives that we have to find a better way of dealing with them than by revictimizing those who have to attend Parole Board hearings time and time again.

My first introduction to this type of situation was Clifford Olson. We are now friends with 11 family members of victims of Clifford Olson. The revictimization that those individuals had to suffer and live through during those parole hearings—Clifford Olson was a master at calling for these hearings almost every year—was just unprecedented.

Throughout the 20-year history that we have been working with victims of crime and from the 20 years of research, we've specifically seen increases in disease. Cancer is four times the national average in that particular constituency, as well as heart disease and mental illness. The revictimization that occurs through continued parole hearings takes it toll on the lives of not only the direct victims but also on the victims' families. It is a large circle, and it gets larger and larger as time goes on. For example, when my son was hurt, my grandmother passed away. She could not deal with the injuries my son incurred.

Typically when you're debating and deliberating on criminal justice changes, measures and policies, including parole, for the most part those debates have ignored one vitally important variable, which is the victims and their families. I believe the victims' lives have value that is of equal value to anybody else's in this country. They should not be ignored when we are concerning ourselves with any factor in criminal justice reform. Our obligation here, as Canadians, is harm reduction. I'm convinced that Bill C-266 is a step in the right direction.

I've looked at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which indicates that we're dealing with nine to 10 individuals a year, but I don't know where he got the number from statistically. If they were kept incarcerated for another year, the cost is approximately $1 million per incarcerated individual. That was the end of the report.

Unfortunately, the analysis—either intentionally or unintentionally—did not consider the cost to society of allowing earlier parole applications for those most violent individuals who are targeted by Bill C-266. It deals singularly and specifically with the increased length of incarceration.

It does not consider the cost of repeat offender parole programs, which police-based statistics tell us are in the tens of millions of dollars annually. It does not consider the financial impact of social services for supporting the victims. I have witnessed first-hand the agonizing grief and revictimization forced upon victims, families and even their communities at large when they must relive the horrific details of the most heinous crimes committed against their loved ones.

Trials, convictions and sentencing are not cathartic for survivors. Grief is a never-ending journey, and parole hearings extend and reignite that grieving process. Many victims, survivors, friends and family members are unable to work for months before a hearing. After the hearing, they are terribly affected by having to relive those experiences. Some lose their jobs. They can't participate. They can't continue to become participating members in Canadian society. They can't pay their taxes or any other societal obligations, and many rely on the social safety nets we have in Canada today. All these have costs that are associated with revictimization.

My research also demonstrates that divorce is the inevitable consequence of a child homicide, which creates incredible financial and societal inequities for siblings of homicide victims. Some become a permanent burden on Canadian society. Medical complications are rampant, and revictimization is rampant, equally staggering and profound.

In 2016, Alberta justice minister Kathleen Ganley stated that consecutive parole ineligibilities can be a “useful tool” as a signal to criminals that multiple crimes may lead to a longer sentence. She stated, “It can potentially have a beneficial effect in terms of signalling to people who are doing these things that it's not a good idea.” These are direct quotes, by the way. “It can have a sort of deterrent effect. That being said, obviously it's only intended to be used in certain circumstances.”

She is referring to the most violent and horrific of crimes. We don't see a lot of those in Canada, fortunately, but they are becoming more frequent. I've just attended a conference in Toronto on mass homicides. People in this country and around the world are dealing with this, because it's becoming more and more prevalent as society moves forward. We've had two of them in Toronto just recently. One was the van attack on Yonge Street. The other one was the shooting on Danforth Avenue.

The victimization that occurs, and the cost of that victimization, cannot be calculated. It's the same thing with parole hearings. When victims have to attend parole hearings and face the individuals who have harmed their child or loved ones, the effects are devastating.

My hope is that you will give great consideration to Bill C-266 to allow the judiciary to introduce extended parole ineligibilities for the worst of the worst.

I want to thank you for your time.

10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much.

I will now move to Mr. Bebbington.

10 a.m.

Howard Bebbington Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. We appreciate this opportunity to appear to express our views on Bill C-266.

For those who are not familiar with the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, let me take a minute to tell you that we are a voluntary sector organization. We were originally founded in 1919 and are celebrating our 100th anniversary this year, so we've been around for a little while.

We have approximately 700 members across the country and we represent all aspects of the criminal justice system: lawyers, academics, the police community, correctional officers and victim support officers. We are one of the few voluntary sector organizations working in the criminal justice field—and working to improve it—that attempts to accommodate all perspectives on the criminal justice system. I think that makes our views stronger.

At any rate, with respect to the matter at hand today and with the greatest respect to victims—including the families of those who have suffered tragic events like the ones contemplated by the bill—I must say that we are opposed to this bill.

In our criminal justice system, all persons convicted of murder are sentenced to life imprisonment. This means that anyone convicted of murder, whether or not they are ever released on parole, will be under the control and supervision of correctional authorities for the remainder of their natural lives. There is no warrant expiry for an offender serving a life sentence.

For first degree murder, as you know, the mandatory 25 years specified is not the sentence imposed by our courts but the period of parole ineligibility that the offender must serve before being considered for parole. After that time, the decision on whether or not to gradually release and reintegrate the offender into society is made by the Parole Board.

It is our view that if we don't have confidence in the parole system's ability to get this decision right, we should look at improving the parole system for the sake of all parole decisions, rather than look at amending the sentence for first degree murder, as is proposed in Bill C-266.

If Parliament does amend the law for this type of case, we could easily be caught in an endless cycle of amending the law to further increase the parole ineligibility period to respond to yet another case presenting even more horrific facts. Regrettably, it is always possible to imagine a more horrific fact pattern. I won't delay you with details, but I suggest as an example that if you add to the circumstances contemplated in this bill, torture or extreme brutality are not necessarily covered. Do we keep increasing the parole ineligibility period? In the case of criminal harassment, an intentional killing committed in the context of criminal harassment is not covered by this bill. If this bill is passed, will we see on the order paper more bills suggesting we increase it to 50 years?

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

I'm sorry, but I need to interrupt. I see the bells are going.

Do we have consent to continue for a period of time?

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

No.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

I'm checking with the clerk.

We don't have consent to continue.

Let me ask the members of the committee. Do you wish to return after the vote to finish this meeting to give the witnesses a chance to provide their testimony?

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Absolutely.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

We are going to suspend this meeting. We will return after this vote.

I'm very sorry to interrupt you in the middle of your remarks, sir.