Justice Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Brenda, for being here today. I want to say at the outset, no family in Canada should have to go through what you've gone through. Having known your father, Ron, from his time as a councillor for the town of Riverview, he was always an impassioned advocate, not just for your family in the memory of your sister but also for all victims.

His words did have an impact when it came to parole hearings, particularly around the issue that you mentioned of offenders cancelling a parole hearing without notice to families. I recall him telling the story of when he travelled to Quebec for the hearing and then it was cancelled at the last minute. That should never be allowed to happen.

Your case, more than many, illustrates the revictimization of the process. Your family and your sister were already victims of a criminal act, but then the process continues unfortunately—and this is what we need to stop—to revictimize.

You were in the middle of a thought, so you can wrap up your thought, but can you also comment on the parole system and the frequency of parole hearings? The fact of the matter is that the person who took the life of your sister was on parole when he did it. In spite of that, Corrections Canada didn't know where he was as recently as a few weeks ago. You spoke to me about how that caused fear for you as a family member.

Can you speak to how the parole system has to be improved, maybe some ideas you have that could make it better for victims' families and the importance of victims' families always being looped in when it comes to the actions of offenders?

[Brenda Davis]

First of all, when someone has been put on parole that many times and continues to have his paroles revoked, breaks the rules, goes back to prison, commits more crimes and then they put him back on day parole, he's been in the system for so long that he knows what to say to get his parole. Then, he goes out and he breaks the conditions of his parole. It's happened so many times. We're constantly going to these hearings and having to fight to keep him in there, because we know he's going to do something again. He was just gone for three weeks.

He may be older, but he's very capable. He's an able-bodied man, and if he ran into something like needing money, it's not hard for him to go and repeat what he's already done. He's never shown remorse.

We aren't told what's gone on until months after the incident. Just last week, they informed us that the parole officer will be the one to decide if he goes back to day parole with extra conditions. If the parole officer choses to continue the suspension, then it will go to the Parole Board to make the final decision, but we don't get a say in that. There's not going to be another hearing. They're going to make the decision and the family is left out. We aren't told anything.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Brenda.

Actually, it's incredible to even hear that this person who should have never been parolled in the first place, in my opinion, having had all these violations, would even be considered for some type of release.

Do you think for families, when it is first-degree murder or second-degree murder, that parole hearings of two years are too frequent? Do you think if someone is denied parole there should maybe be a longer period? I've heard from other families and your own about how you just finish one parole hearing and then you're already anticipating in your calendar the next parole hearing. Would it help families if, having been denied parole, the next hearing was further out?

[Brenda Davis]

I think at least five years would be a good time in between. If they're denied, they're denied for a reason.

Like you say, people said two years is not enough—it's not. You get over the hearing and then you start preparing yourself for the next one, because you learn a lot of stuff in those hearings. You learn of the things the offender has done that have taken away their privileges, etc., but we only find out about those things when we go to the parole hearings. We're finding out about that and then we're trying to compile all that information and find out stuff. Then all of a sudden it's time for the next hearing.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Brenda.

Other individuals are going to question you from the committee, but I really appreciate your taking the time to speak to our justice committee. I hope your testimony has an impact on everyone, on the ways we can improve the system for your family and others.

Thanks again for taking the time to meet with us today.

[Brenda Davis]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Next, we'll go to Ms. Dhillon for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Ms. Davis for coming in and testifying about this very painful tragedy that she and her family have experienced. There are no words to express still hearing the pain in your voice 35 years later.

In the last 35 years you've been navigating the criminal justice system. I wanted to ask if you could please tell the committee if you have you seen any improvements when it comes to victims' rights or for their families, because you are speaking for the victim right now, who was your sister. Could you please tell us a little bit about whether you have seen any improvements? What would you like to see improved even further? Just tell us your experiences, please.

Thank you.

[Brenda Davis]

Transparency is one. The family should be told exactly what these breaches of conditions are when the offender breaches a condition or when he's in prison and does something that ends up with him in isolation or suspends his parole. We should be told what it is, but we're not told. We're not told till months later. Even then, there are things we aren't told.

I think that as victims we deserve to know that. No, it maybe doesn't have to do with the original crime, but he's in there serving time for the original crime. I believe all of that adds on to it, and it's our right to know. We're constantly told later. It's like our trip to Montreal that was cancelled. It was months later before we found out why it was cancelled. It has just been continuous. There needs to be transparency.

In our case, when he escaped custody and was gone for three weeks, we again did not get any answers. They said his warrant was issued on September 1, which was a Thursday, but he does a five-and-two day parole. He spends five days on his own and two days in a halfway house. We don't actually know when he was last seen. They couldn't tell me where he was or where they thought he might be. It's not fair to the families.

I was questioned: “Why do you think you're in harm's way?” I think anyone can see that we've managed to keep him in prison for an extra long time after his parole was due, and that's because of his offences. I think we should be told exactly what's going on when it happens. I think victim services should take more of a part in helping the victims.

I had the RCMP call me two and three times a week to check on us, to make sure we were okay, but I was also told that I should install a security system, with cameras, at my house. To me, that's not my job to do that. It's their job—Corrections, the Parole Board—to keep an eye on him, to make sure they know where he is, so that the victims don't have to worry all the time. We shouldn't be the ones who have to go and put it out to the public. He's a high-risk offender. He's a violent offender. He's been in jail since the 1970s almost continuously. When he has been out, it's been on parole, and his parole has been revoked.

We're not getting answers. We only find stuff out later. We get to the parole hearings and he already has all of our statements, so he knows what to say. It's not fair to the victims. What we say should not be given to him prior to....

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I'm so sorry that we are so limited on time.

You spoke also about publication bans. Can you talk to us a bit about how they're good for maintaining the privacy and dignity of victims, of complainants, but how they can also have unintended consequences?

[Brenda Davis]

I suppose it depends on the crime as to whether or not something should be publicized. In this case, I believe it should have been put out to the public immediately, and it wasn't. That's why I put it out. I put it out to protect people, so that people would know, if they'd seen him, to call the police.

Yes, in some cases maybe it shouldn't be put out, to protect the victim, but in our case, he's a violent offender. He wasn't a sexual offender. His victim didn't live, so we weren't protecting her. We just wanted him found to protect ourselves and to protect the public.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

Next we go to Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Davis. Thank you for being with us today.

Your testimony is almost disturbing. What you have had to go through because of how things were done makes no sense. For one thing, I am thinking of the fact that you were not informed in advance of the adjournments, which is unacceptable, in my opinion. It would be fairly easy to change the way that is done. Victims should participate in court proceedings in some way, particularly when it comes to adjournments. They could be notified at least the day before, or two days before, so they could avoid travelling. I think that is a minimum.

I would like to talk with you about the question of the language the trial is held in. From what I understand, you were put at a disadvantage to some extent. I am not certain I grasped the details, but I gather that the accused asked that his trial be held in French. Since I am a francophone myself, I can understand that, in spite of my lack of sympathy for him because of the things he has done. However, that should not be at the expense of the victims or the victim's family, as in this case.

I would like you to tell me more about the way things happened. I thought I understood that you were not informed that you would not be offered interpretation services.

Is that right? I would like to know a bit more about this.

[Brenda Davis]

Originally, for the first hearing, we were told that there was not an ability to have translation. They didn't have the room for it. They didn't have the setup, and my father fought tooth and nail for us to get translation. It did mean that we had to move to a different prison in order to get the translation booth and the translators in there.

His original trial was in English, but I know he's French, and that is his right. It's also the right of the victims. We're the ones who are suffering. He's put himself in that position, but we, as victims, deserve to hear everything and understand everything. We did accomplish that, but it wasn't easy.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

If I understand correctly, it was when the accused applied for parole that the proceedings were held in French.

Is that it?

The trial at which he was convicted was held in English, but the parole application was in French.

Is that right?

[Brenda Davis]

Yes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

This is a question we will have to come back to in our report, because I think it is important. We will certainly be discussing it. Thank you for bringing this question to our attention.

Now let's talk about adjournments that happen on the spur of the moment, or nearly so, on the morning of the hearing. I understand that the accused, as he is entitled to do, opts for a trial by judge or jury and that this inconveniences victims.

Were you contacted by the prosecutor handling the case in advance, one way or another, or did you have no contact and learn about the adjournment on the morning of the hearing?

[Brenda Davis]

I flew up there. My parents drove. They were probably in their early sixties, so they drove from New Brunswick to Montreal. As soon as they pulled up to the hotel, they had a phone call saying that the hearing was cancelled, and we weren't given another date for I don't know how long.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Did you get the telephone call about the adjournment the day before the hearing or a few days before? I understand that your parents had just arrived at the hotel, but did the call only happen the day before, or before that?

[Brenda Davis]

It was the afternoon before the hearing.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Did that happen again, or was that the only time there was a last-minute adjournment?

[Brenda Davis]

I believe he's cancelled a couple more, but they weren't ones where we were to attend. They were reviews they just did there. He had cancelled some, and we came to find out later that he cancelled them because he had done something wrong. He doesn't want to go in there and have them say right off, “No, you don't get it. Go back.”

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Regardless of whether the reasons were good or bad, personally, it is how it was done that concerns me. I think it is unacceptable that you were only informed the day before, particularly given the long trip to get to Montreal.

If I understand correctly, the Crown prosecutor did not telephone you to ask whether you agreed to there being an adjournment or something like that. Everything was done without you being consulted or informed in advance.

Is that right?

[Brenda Davis]

No, we had no information before and no warning. We thought the hearing should have gone on regardless. If he did something wrong, it should have come out so that we are all aware of what happened. We weren't told. We were just told that they had to send him back to medium-security prison.