Evidence of meeting #41 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was i've.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Board Member, John Howard Society of Manitoba
Yes. I had significant restitution that I had to pay. So you can assume correctly, yes.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Excellent.
Mr. Hutton, I have a number of questions for you. Quite frankly, I'm troubled by a number of things in your brief and in your comments.
You indicated in your submission that under Canadian law it's the police that lay the charge and the crown prosecutes. So if a person is convicted, they have committed an offence against Canada; therefore, as an aggrieved party, the government clearly does have a role in granting pardons.
So tell me, sir, what role, if any, do the victims play in this process, if it's the crown that prosecutes and it's the offender that defends?
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
Actually, very little. I did mention that I had spent several years working in victim-offender mediation. One of the advantages of that process is that the victim has much more of a role in this alternative to the courts. But in the court system the victim does not have a formal role. They may or may not even be aware that the case is going to court. If they are there, they would be there as an observer, not as a participant. And if they address the court, it's usually just at the end, and usually after guilt has been determined, and if the person is convicted, to do a victim impact statement. But the victim doesn't have a—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Philosophically, you don't have a problem with that, that victims have a very limited role in that procedure that you just outlined?
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
Actually, I think victims should have a greater role. That's why I spent several years working as a victim-offender mediator, because it gave victims an opportunity to be much more involved in the process. So I think victims' involvement is important, but the current court system doesn't allow for great victim involvement.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Well, I can name off a list of ten victim groups very easily, without trying very hard, that support this proposed legislation. If you are advocating for a greater role for victims in the process, why do you take such a different view from, say, the Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, or the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
As I said, I read the bill and I didn't see anything in there that provided a role for victims. As part of this process, somebody asked if there could be a victim impact statement to the parole board. I didn't see that in the legislation. Did I miss that?
My comment was that this legislation doesn't give victims more of a role.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
So I guess all of the victim groups that have come out in favour of this are mistaken, according to you, in placing their advocacy behind this proposed legislation?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
I don't know why they're advocating for it. That's their decision. I'm just saying I didn't see a role for victims in the legislation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay.
In response to a question from my friend Mr. Holland, I think you said that any barrier put in place to prevent individuals from getting a pardon is not welcome and that the line is fine where it is. I think you may have already answered this. You don't support Bill C-23A either. You believe that the status quo prior to Bill C-23A was appropriate, and in that, the parole board has no discretion to deny a pardon, even if in its viewpoint it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute?
November 22nd, 2010 / 4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
The bill has changed, and I'm not here to argue against Bill C-23A. You already have a clause in the legislation that allows for a great deal of discretion, and if that is your goal, it's there. There's quite a bit of discretion.
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
Certainly.
I didn't think it was necessary. As I mentioned, getting a pardon doesn't make it easier for someone to conceal a crime or escape investigation. The police are still very much aware of an individual's record. There are two differences. One is that the person, prior to Bill C-23, got a pardon—and I guess they still do—but then the police don't share the information they have on file with an employer or somebody else who's wanting a check, but the police still have that information. So having a pardon doesn't make it easier for me to commit a crime or conceal my past from the police or make it harder for them to investigate me. At the time this first came up, I said on CBC national radio that it wasn't necessary. I thought the system, with a 96% success rate, worked just fine.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Hutton.
We'll now move back to Madame Mourani.
Madame Mourani, vous avez cinq minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hutton, you said that this bill doesn't have any additional value for the victims. That's a rather interesting comment. I was wondering if you are familiar with Bill C-343.
Mr. Hutton, did you hear what I said?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
No, I'm not.... I was listening to it--
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
Yes.
No, I'm not familiar with it.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I didn't get the translation of what the gentleman said.
Are you not familiar with Bill C-343?
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
To quickly summarize the bill, I would say that it's a piece of legislation that ensures a two-year work attachment maintenance for people whose family members have died as a result of a criminal offence or a suicide. It was drafted for families in distress. It entitles them to a year of employment insurance. The bill was introduced by my colleague Ms. Bonsant, and it was studied by the committee. It will soon pass third reading. This bill was drafted with the victims in mind, and it is only concerned with them.
Yet, Conservative MPs voted against the bill, and they voted against its provisions in committee. They voted against a bill for the victims. However, this is not the only bill they have introduced... They have tabled several—and always with the criminals in mind. That's how they say it: “The criminals, the criminals.”
Do you really think that this government, with all its policies it passes off as law and order—and this is really dramatic—is acting in the best interest of the victims and, at most, in the best interest of public safety?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
I'm going to speak very narrowly. Because I was asked to come and speak to Bill C-23B, I should keep my comments focused on that.
As I've said, I don't see a lot in this bill that would help victims groups.
I do want to say that the John Howard Society also works with victims. Some of our programming is restorative in nature. Victims are very much involved in some of the work that we do with offenders to try to help them repair some of the harm that's been done. So I'm certainly sympathetic.
I will just say, broadly perhaps, that it would be good if the victim's voice could be heard more broadly in the justice and correctional system. I'd say that would be a good thing.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Manitoba
I don't see anything in the bill that would give victims a stronger role in the process.