Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You'll get no argument from me on prevention. I think that's where the government is going so wrong. They're not putting enough into prevention.

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

I can mention several examples of where we were investing, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I would go to your bill—

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

I don't understand how we could be going wrong here.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I heard what you said, but when you look at the overall position of the government, I would question them.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On a point of order—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

We have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—we're actually here discussing a private member's bill. I think the questions coming from all sides of the table should be directed to that private member's bill.

Leave your personal opinions with regard to other government legislation out of this committee for this time being.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Ms. James. I don't believe that's actually a point of order, so I'll return to—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't think that's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

—Mr. Easter, and I'll extend his time.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But anyway, with regard to the bill, Mr. Sweet, Bill C-479, under clause 2, proposed subsection 5.01 says that “the Board shall conduct another review”, and the key words are, “within five years after the later of the day”, and it goes on from there. Mr. Norlock raised this question earlier.

We know that the maximum the bill proposes is five years. What's the minimum period that the parole board could act on? Is it two years? Is it three? Is it four? Does this really mean much when it says “within”? It doesn't say “five years”; it says “within”.

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

Yes, absolutely. I think it means a lot.

Right now, the parole board has discretion at the hearing—the hearing time within two years, as it is—and sometimes they actually do what is called a “paper review”. I don't know if you've experienced that. The hearing is one aspect of what they can do, but the parole board can actually do a paper review.

We had this circumstance. If you've noticed the gap between the times I visited the parole board, we had a hearing, the offender was denied day parole, and then, in a subsequent paper hearing, was actually given day parole. They have a lot of latitude in regard to their operations. This simply gives them the capability of, by statute, not having a review within two years, so they can make that judgment.

You mentioned all the great work and the preparatory work they do. That gives them a good idea about where they want to go with regard to how to deal with the offender and how to stream them into the community in the best way, so that they're not going to reoffend, they're going to be rehabilitated successfully, and the community will be safe. It's a win-win-win situation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So you—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

I have extended your time already, Mr. Easter.

We'll go to Mr. Rousseau for five minutes, please.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sweet, thank you very much for joining us for the in-depth study of this bill and especially for being open minded to the various amendments that may be proposed on both sides. That is much appreciated.

We also want to support victims and families and work with them by providing services and support, in addition to adopting certain measures. We should be receptive to what those people have to say at hearings.

Can you tell us what this bill's underlying motives are? These legislative measures are often part of private members' business. Whose idea was it to make amendments, especially amendments to parole?

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

I think there are nine separate provisions in the bill that cover a number of things. The discretion around the parole board hearing came from multiple sources. One of them, of course, was my experience. Another one was a move that had been afoot. I think if you ask the ombudsman in the next hour, she would be able to tell you, but I think it's over the last 15 to 20 years that victims' advocacy groups were asking for the Parole Board of Canada to have more discretion and a longer term between hearings.

In terms of the other provisions in regard to the information being available, I'll tell you about the first place I heard that from. The Toronto Police Association called me and told me about the terrible tragedy that happened to Constable Michael Sweet. It was the murder in that case of a six-year veteran of the Toronto police force, which was so heinous. He was flagged down by someone who was able to get outside of a what I believe was a delicatessen—it was some kind of public store—where the two Munro brothers were holding hostages.

Of course, as any good policeman would when everybody else was trying to run away, he ran into the situation and was shot twice. Then the Munro brothers held him hostage and denigrated him and allowed him to bleed to death in front of all of the people who were held hostage. Unfortunately, the police weren't able to get their SWAT team there fast enough and get in to extricate him. They shot the two Munro brothers. They took the three of them to the hospital. The two Munro brothers survived and Constable Sweet died.

The Sweet family stayed pretty silent through the whole thing. It devastated their family so much. But the one thing they did ask for was that they could get some information about the inmates' progress and their correctional plan so that they would feel that their family member did not die in vain. That's all they wanted. They spoke up after years and years and just said that this isn't a privacy issue. This is an issue of public concern.

The persons shot her husband in public, he died in public, and they were tried in public and convicted in public. She and the family were simply saying that this information about the persons' rehabilitation should be made public so that the public and the family that was harmed could rest assured that all efforts were being made to rehabilitate and they would feel that then at least their loved one didn't die in vain.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Unfortunately, one of the problems in our prison system is the fact that rehabilitation programs are not applied thoroughly. We could talk about this for a long time.

The extension to five years has an undesirable consequence for inmates who don't have a long-term sentence. As for the terms, couldn't this lead to unwanted consequences in cases where offenders sentenced to shorter terms would have only one hearing and would have no follow-up? In those cases, victims would have no recourse.

I would like to hear your comments on that.

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

The Parole Board of Canada has quite a number of tools and capability. The only reason why they would extend a hearing and certainly the only intention of this bill would be that they felt that the offender, the inmate, needed to make more progress on their correctional plan. If they haven't made appropriate progress in their correctional plan and didn't warrant a hearing, they certainly wouldn't be eligible or wouldn't qualify as ideal candidates for conditional release.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

I'm going to have to cut you off there.

So I'd like to thank you very much for appearing before the committee. Our committee will hear additional witnesses and deal with your bill as expeditiously as we can. Thank you very much.

Just before we suspend, I believe the parliamentary secretary has a motion that would affect the timing of our next session.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I was actually going to save that to the end of the committee but we can do it while the committee is suspended. I actually move to go in camera to discuss future committee business—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

At the end of the next session....

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—at the end of the next session.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Is there any other discussion?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Basically we need five minutes—