Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I wonder if you could speak to why it's important that victims, or the families of victims, receive...or the requirement for mandatory disclosure of the date and time and conditions of the release. Why do you think it's so important that the families or the victims themselves—the victims who are not deceased—know that information?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

From the victims I have spoken to, they would like that information because they feel that their own personal safety is in jeopardy. Oftentimes where the crime happened is where the family resides; it's where the offence took place. They want to know if the person is coming into their area and what kinds of restrictions they have so that they can make sure and take appropriate action to preserve the integrity and safety of themselves and their own families.

There's a video on the victims ombudsman's website that has a good dissertation on that. I would encourage colleagues to look at that website. In fact one gentleman on the video, if I recall correctly from what I watched, was on a business trip somewhere and found out that the person who was the violent offender who had victimized his family was actually released in the same area where he was on a trip, and he hadn't been informed about it.

These kinds of things terrify people. They know the capability, obviously, of these individuals, and they're concerned that they'll perpetrate another crime again. Unfortunately, they're afraid that it could be against either them or their families.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to Madame Doré Lefebvre, for seven minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Sweet for joining us today to tell us more about Bill C-479, which he introduced. Today, we are examining the extremely important issue of victims' rights. This study should be taken very seriously.

Today, during the question period in the House, a question was put to the Minister of Public Safety regarding the Victims Bill of Rights, promised by the Conservative government over a year ago. That bill was actually included in the 2014 budget tabled by the government.

Is it wise to go ahead with a private member's bill, which calls for minor amendments to victims' rights, before considering the Victims Bill of Rights that has been announced? Do you know to what extent this bill will be related to the upcoming Victims Bill of Rights? If not, why not wait until the Victims Bill of Rights promised by your government is introduced?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much for the question. There are a couple of elements there I want to respond to. One is that I know this Minister of Public Safety. I know he's dedicated to the victims, and I know that if there's any delay or passage of time, it's because he wants to get it right.

As I mentioned, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which is only one aspect that affects victims—of course the Criminal Code does as well—was developed and passed into legislation in 1992. So there's probably a significant review that needs to go on before making sure that's complete. I don't know every detail of how they're doing it. I haven't had direct consultations in that regard.

In regard to this bill, I do want colleagues to know that this is a private member's bill and that, in fact, there was an iteration of this before in the previous Parliament, but we went to an election and it died on the order paper. So we're fortunate to get to this stage this time with this bill.

As far as how it will affect the victims' bill of rights, I can only speculate. As I said, I don't know what that's going to entail, but I think it would only serve to support any initiative that is taken with respect to a victims' bill of rights. Because of the nature of the amount of research we did, I think it will just complement it.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

On another note, you said that you have consulted a number of people. You have spent a lot of time working on this bill. You mentioned a few groups, including the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Did you also consult the Parole Board of Canada before or during the drafting of this bill?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I did consult with individual members of the Parole Board of Canada. I did not sit down directly with the Parole Board of Canada itself, but I did talk with some of the professionals who adjudicate the reviews.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How did they react to this bill?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

They were very positive about some of the discretionary tools it would give them, and they were appreciative that I would take the initiative with my own private member's bill to move forward.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Excellent.

You seem to be very familiar with how the Parole Board of Canada operates. Given the important role parole plays in structuring prison life and monitoring prisoners' reintegration, don't you think that the longer terms between hearings you propose in this bill may discourage offenders from achieving the objectives of their corrections plan?

Couldn't more time between hearings potentially also jeopardize public safety because offenders may sometimes be released without anyone checking whether they are ready for that?

Do you have anything to say on the issue?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much for that question. It allows me to make sure I clarify another thing. The language in the bill is “up to“, so that's why I say it gives them discretion. It does not limit them to having a review or a hearing earlier than the five-year period. It simply gives them the discretion to do that.

As far as discouraging is concerned, I would hope that it would actually encourage offenders to get busy on their correctional plan and be ready to be able to show they're worthy of a parole board hearing, and at a most expeditious time, and that they're prepared to go out and be contributing Canadian citizens. One of the things I often see, and one of the criticisms about those of us who are victims' advocates is that people think it's mutually exclusive—that you're either for the rehabilitation and reintegration and betterment of society by having inmates who are rehabilitated or educated with a tool so that they could live successfully, or you advocate for victims. I don't see those as mutually exclusive.

I think that one of the best things you can do for Canadians, for victims, is to make sure offenders are released in a way that they're not going to be detractors from society anymore, but contributors. I don't think this bill in any way, shape, or form eliminates the capability of offenders of doing that. As I said, it only gives the Parole Board of Canada discretion.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Do I have enough time for another quick question, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Really short....

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

My question is about the structure of the bill. I would like you to clarify something.

Does your bill grant victims the right to attend parole hearings if the general public has no access to them?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I believe that right now the provisions of the Parole Board of Canada are that anyone from the public can apply to attend a parole board hearing. The bill simply enshrines in legislation that a victim has the right to.

Right now there are policies in place. I simply want to clarify some things in law to make sure the message is clear that a victim has that right.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

We'll now turn to Mr. Norlock, for seven minutes, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witness.

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Sweet, and for this piece of legislation.

I know some of the young people might fall off their chair when I say this, but some 44 years ago when I was a young police officer I can tell you very little attention was paid to victims of crime. As a matter of fact I don't recall ever there being even victim impact statements until well into my career. Of course, today we do have a whole plethora of services to victims in our court system.

I think what you're doing with this bill is accentuating the responsibility of not only the offender but to the feelings and to society's relationship to the victim, and making sure the person is adequately prepared as you just recently said in your testimony to Ms. Lefebvre.

I want to get into some of the meat and potatoes of the bill now if you don't mind. There are a couple of questions, but I'll run the first two together.

I was wondering why you feel it's important to expand the mandatory review period from two to five years for violent criminals. I think you specified “violent” is an important part of this.

Beyond that could you also discuss why it's important to expand the review period following the cancellation of termination of parole.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

In both cases it's a case of trusting the Parole Board of Canada has the capability of looking at a file and determining what offenders are ready to be released on conditional release, or day parole, or full parole prior to them coming to the meeting.

That is not to say the offender's testimony, the victim impact statement, and other evidence that's heard at the hearing does not make a difference or even a substantive difference, but there is a lot of pre-work that's done.

A file I saw a review panellist bring in at one parole board hearing was almost a foot thick. That's how much research they had done on the particular offender, so they know how to look and evaluate who is ready for these different types of releases.

Whether it's an inmate who's coming for their first hearing after serving a sentence, or whether it's an offender who has breached their parole or outright reoffended, in either case I believe we can trust in the capability of the parole board to know whether an immediate review should be done, or whether time should be taken for the offender to access the programs in order to make a more significant advancement on their rehabilitation program than what they have. That's simply why that provision is in there.

Why would this benefit a victim? Why subject them to a hearing when it's simply going to be a “no” anyway? That's why that discretion is there. I think the parole board has a good handle on the foundations of what's going to happen at the hearing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a follow-up question. Could you explain to the committee how important it is to tighten the language. I know you have said—I'll try to be succinct—you wanted to be somewhat prescriptive, yet not restrictive, with regard to this piece of legislation.

I wonder why you felt it important to tighten up the language with respect to the importance of the parole board while making every effort to fully understand the needs of the victims and specifically the victims' families.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

First off, victims need to know that it's legislated. Let me quote from the former victims ombudsman, who said in iPolitics:

...it's important to legislate this right if we believe victims are entitled to have their voices heard and respected.

He was commenting on the fact that it was already the policy of the Parole Board of Canada for a victim to give a victim impact statement, but he was saying nonetheless this is important to legislate, if this is to be a right we believe victims are entitled to.

For me, policy can change. Management of institutions can change. Legislation tends to be a little bit more concrete. It sends a very clear message. I would hope that, if anything, it would give positive encouragement to the Parole Board of Canada to go even farther than they are right now toward a mindset of being conscious of the victim being part of the process.

I go back to your comment that it's still an evolution with regard to understanding that the victim is part of the whole process, and it's a real recent evolution. It's not something that has been around for 50 years, as you rightly said, from your experience as being a police officer 44 years ago.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for what you said to a previous witness's question, because in a lot of talk around the Hill among us political types, the suggestion is that we're really not interested in rehabilitation, and of course, this is actually a part of the rehabilitative process. I think you articulated this, and I wonder if you wish to expand on it.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That's exactly correct. The Parole Board of Canada is there. If I can quote to you a document that was made to explain the 1992 provision of the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it says:

One of the most significant aspects of the CCRA is an articulation, for the first time in legislation, of the purpose and principles of corrections and conditional release. As expressed in the Act, the primary purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. Further, the first principle to guide the CSC in achieving this goal states that the protection of society is the paramount consideration for all decisions relating to release and treatment of offenders.

Then it goes on to say that the CCRA also takes into consideration the rehabilitation of offenders and the safe release of offenders, so that in fact they can become contributing citizens and be builders of Canadian society rather than detractors.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

Now we'll turn to Mr. Easter for seven minutes, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Sweet. Let me say that I have attended parole board hearings as well, and it can certainly be a traumatic experience, there's no question about that. I don't think most people realize the professionalism and the amount of work that parole board appointees really put into a hearing. What you see at the hearing itself is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they do and what correctional officials do in terms of preparing the homework before you have the hearing.

To begin, Mr. Sweet, you know my concern with the avalanche of private members' bills that are coming forward from backbench Conservative members. I think there are something like 16 that impact the Criminal Code.

You are members of the government. It sounds like the parliamentary secretary, who is the representative of the minister here, is fully supportive of this bill. What I can't understand, for the life of me, is why these discussions on these private members' bills aren't done in a comprehensive way within the governing party and brought forward as comprehensive amendments rather than one-offs to the Criminal Code of Canada.

One error on our part as a committee, on a private member's bill, could in fact have the opposite effect of what was intended. I know that your intent here is value. We've had experience with this before. One private member's bill that was just dealt with at the justice committee had six amendments, on a five-clause bill, coming from the Conservatives. I just lay that out, and I guess I would ask....

Mr. MacKenzie has a bill as well, Bill C-483, and he has taken the position in his bill that the parole board, rather than the warden, be responsible for all temporary absences. He's taken responsibility from the warden, in that bill, and passed it over to the parole board, which means more work for the parole board. Your bill is going somewhat the other way in terms of, I think, trying to lessen the workload of the parole board.

Is there any contradiction between the two? Was there any discussion within your caucus to determine if there's a conflict here?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Easter. You can please accept my commendations for taking the time to go to a parole board hearing. It's a long, arduous meeting. I know that, because I've been in them, and you leave, even as a bystander, a very different person.

Let me also say that although I know you have this position, and you've characterized it that way...and that's okay. You're allowed your opinion. But all of us are allowed to have our name in a lottery. Most of the people in the public don't know that this is how we end up being able to get a private member's bill: our name is pulled out. The first time I think I was number 206, which is why my bill didn't make it. I was fortunate to be I think number 99 this time.

The private member is then allowed to pursue something that they're really dedicated to in order to make this a better Canada. Most of us ran for office because we were idealists. We wanted to make this a better country. We wanted to protect the innocent and bring to justice those who would purport to do people harm, or would actually do people harm. My pursuit of this bill was a personal endeavour to help victims. I'm just glad I'm with a party that is of that same mind and has championed the rights of victims.

At the same time, you should also note, Mr. Easter, that I come from a community, Hamilton, where significant investments have been made by the National Crime Prevention Centre, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and by such organizations as St. Leonard's Society, Living Rock, and Liberty for Youth to help reintegrate those who have offended as well as keep youth from crime.

There have been significant investments in that regard, and all these initiatives to protect victims. We want to make sure we keep youth away from crime, because if we can prevent that, then people aren't victimized later as well. I think there's a good balance between what the government's doing and also my right as a private member to pursue something that I am concerned about.