Evidence of meeting #12 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hearing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Colleagues, we'll bring this meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to order.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In preparing witnesses to appear before the committee, the committee issued an invitation to the Parole Board, and they are not scheduled. It's my understanding they may have declined to appear before the committee, and as a parliamentarian, no matter what they intended to say on this I have some concerns about the Parole Board declining to appear. So I would ask that the Parole Board correspondence be tabled with the committee.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Is there any further discussion on that? Are we all comfortable with that?
3:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
You'll be aware that I wrote a letter to the clerk asking that this meeting be televised. I think we're going to televise a part of it, in terms of the witness who was making the proposal. We should be televising it all.
Since that time I've had discussions with the parliamentary secretary, and I am informed that at least one of the witnesses is concerned about the meeting being televised. If a witness has a concern about having it televised, then I am willing to accept that point. But it should be understood that if the meeting isn't going to be televised, if there are concerns on the part of a witness, then maybe that section of the hearing should be in camera rather than in the regular meeting.
“Televised” is a physical recording of the meeting, but the meetings are recorded and go out over the airways, so there is that there.
I'm wondering where to go in that regard, Mr. Chair. I do believe this should be televised, but if a witness wants to express their concerns, then maybe it'd be best we go in camera.
3:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Well then, we will go in camera to discuss Mr. Easter's motion.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, and we apologize to the witnesses for the brief delay.
This meeting is now public and televised.
One quick little bit of housekeeping just before we start. The chair would entertain the motion for expenses that has been distributed. It has been moved by Mr. Payne and seconded by Mr. Garrison.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you very kindly.
Okay, we have three witnesses here. We have up to 10 minutes per witness for your comments, followed by a brief question and answer. We have you for the first hour, so we thank you very much for your patience.
The chair, on behalf of all of this committee, thanks you very much for coming in today.
We will start off in the order of Mona Lee, followed by Arlène Gaudreault, and then Mr. McCormack.
Ms. Lee, you have the floor for 10 minutes, please.
3:40 p.m.
Mona Lee As an Individual
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you to give a voice to victims and their families in support of Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).
I would first like to thank Mr. Sweet and his staff for all their hard work in getting this bill to this point and for his support for victims of crime in Canada.
I would also like to thank Sue O'Sullivan, federal ombudsman for victims of crime, for her submission and I fully support her minor modifications to enhance the bill.
By way of background, I wish I wasn't, but unfortunately, I have become an expert in many of the issues dealt with in this bill by way of personal experience. My sister was savagely murdered in October of 1997. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, as he covered it up to appear to be a robbery, and was sentenced to life with no parole for a minimum of 12 years.
We were spared the agony of a long-drawn-out trial, but it was not until six years later, in 2003, that I was able emotionally to bring myself to even find out where he was located. Once I did that, I became involved in this system and became a “registered victim”, with all its entitlement.
Beginning in 2004, a mere seven years after the conviction, my family and I have endured the hardship that comes with being a victim involved in the parole system in Canada. From June of 2007, when his first application for day parole was denied, to the present time, there have been six parole hearings, involving six victim impact statements and the torture that goes with them. Forget about every two years, ladies and gentlemen. Some of these hearings were held six months—yes, six months—apart.
If I may, I would like to take this time to read some excerpts from my victim impact statements to show the gut-wrenching nature of these hearings and what families of victims of crime have to endure. The first is from September 2008, only one year after his first application for day parole was denied.
“To the members of the national parole board, I want you to imagine the revulsion that I felt when I came home recently and opened yet another letter from the parole board advising me that he had submitted yet another application for day parole. I was told last July that it would be another two years, in 2009, before he would be able to apply again, when the minimum 12-year sentence was up. But, no, I was told that this case was special and an early decision was being requested.”
Then I go on to say in the statement, “There is currently a petition to the federal government, a copy of which I attached, which is asking for parole hearings every five years instead of every two years. It states in part, and I emphasize, that families of a homicide do not get parole for their suffering, and that repeated parole hearings can have tremendous negative effects on the families of the victims.”
There was another hearing a year later, in September 2009, when he applied for full parole and was denied, and another hearing less than a year later, in April of 2010, where he was finally granted full parole, unfortunately.
But the story is not over, ladies and gentlemen. Last July I got a phone call in the middle of the night to tell me that he had been arrested and had his parole suspended. It has now been revoked and he is back in prison, thankfully, but I am now back in this system, unfortunately.
At the time, last summer, I was asked to do another victim impact statement, wherein I said in part, “We all know how disheartening it is to hear the phone ring in the middle of the night, so you can imagine how upset I was to find out by a 3:30 a.m. phone call that he had a warrant out for his arrest yet again. The next day I found out that he had been arrested and sent to the penitentiary.”
In spite of strong efforts on my part and going down many avenues, I have not been able to find out what he did to cause this to happen. Person after person told me, “Sorry, he has his right of privacy, and we can't tell you what he did.” How fair is this, I ask you? As I pointed out in my previous statement, where are my rights and the rights of my family? No wonder parliamentarians have brought forward Bill C-479, which aims to change, among other things, the right to have a parole hearing from every two years to up to every five years. Each time these hearings come up we are revictimized, and we have to relive the events that caused the brutal death of our loved ones.
That brings me to the points about the hearings themselves. As they were held in another city, and for the reason that I had never been face to face with my sister's killer, I chose to do these statements by audio tape at first, and then video tape. I had several occasions where I had difficulty with the execution of these at the hearings. In one case I was really frustrated by the fact that because I had inadvertently forgotten the last part of the written transcript, they cut the tape off before the end of it in mid-sentence. No one even called me to ask me to fax the rest of the statement to them. It was about the killer's right to see it first, and my voice was not heard.
There were also occasions where they were not even prepared with the right equipment to show the tape. I was also not even allowed to show a picture of my sister in the video that I made, as I was told that the hearing was about him, and not her, if you can believe that.
As I mentioned, the true flavour of the hearing was conveyed to me only by the kind person from the victims' group who attended on my behalf. The decision register that we receive is so sanitized as to protect the killer, with pertinent facts blocked out to protect his privacy rights. That is why I urge you to include the provisions of access to teleconferencing or closed-circuit video feed, and to be able to read our victim impact statements at these hearings. We need to be heard, and to be able to hear.
Therefore, I would ask that one thing you consider is an amendment to this bill, because the way it's drafted here it provides for teleconferencing only if the board decides not to permit a victim to come. I would ask that you consider it to apply to all hearings, and not just the ones where the access has been denied. For somebody like me this would have been very helpful.
As I had not seen the offender in person, other than in a 15-year-old picture, at the time of his full parole I asked both the Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada for a picture of him. Once again I was told it was against his privacy rights. This man could have shown up at my door and I would not have known who he was. It was only when I turned to the police that they sent me a copy of a picture of him. This is a matter of safety for me and my family, which was denied to me. I would urge you to consider adding this provision with the other information to be given to victims. The more information we have, the better we can be prepared to participate in this system. This would also include receiving a more conclusive plan for rehabilitation.
In conclusion, I thank you for your consideration, and would say that this bill is a great beginning for helping victims of violent crime. I would urge all parties to continue to work together to allow our voices to be heard.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Ms. Lee, thank you very kindly. We do certainly appreciate your coming here today and providing witness.
Madam Gaudreault, you have up to 10 minutes, s'il vous plaît.
3:50 p.m.
Arlène Gaudreault President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes
Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for allowing us to participate in the consultation on this bill and to contribute to its work. I would particularly like to thank David Sweet, MP, for his commitment to this bill and his interest in the rights of victims of crime.
The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes has been in operation for 30 years. The mission of the association is to defend the rights and interests of victims of crime. The association brings together over 200 organizations that provide psychosocial support to victims and guidance through the justice system.
To begin with, we support many of the proposals for Bill C-479. Our presentations seek to express some of our questions and to propose some amendments that would likely improve the rights of victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
If I may, I will present our proposals in sections. First, I will talk about the amendments related to the attendance of victims at hearings and their participation. My first comment deals with the presumptive right to participate in hearings. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made that recommendation a number of years ago. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has made the same recommendation in recent years. We therefore support this proposal.
We have only one comment to make. In French, the current legislation talks about permitting victims to attend whereas the proposals on the table refer to authorizing them to attend. But “permettre” and “autoriser” have the same meaning. That would be something to check. It is a suggestion, not a substantive issue. It is a question of semantics.
Of course, we support the proposal on understanding why victims of crime need to attend hearings. However, we have a few concerns about how it will be applied. Perhaps we will be able to talk about them during questions.
My third point has to do with the options for victims who are unable to attend the hearings. If their attendance is not permitted, our suggestion is to allow them to follow the hearings by teleconference or by one-way video feed. We feel that this option should be available. Generally, victims are allowed at hearings. However, there may be exceptional cases where the safety of the facility or of the people might be at risk. We propose that the following words be added at the end of the clause: “except in cases where the safety of a facility, of an offender or of any other person may be at risk”.
We have a proposal that is in line with the one made by Ms. Lee and by the National Office for Victims. When victims are permitted to attend hearings and when they request to follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way video feed, we propose that the request be accepted; so the legislation should be amended. That would be a very good solution. I think that addresses a request made a very long time ago by victims’ rights groups.
The second section has to do with amendments to the victim impact statement at parole hearings. Section 101 of the current act indicates that the board must take into consideration the information received from victims. The victims' statement has been explicitly added and we think that reinforces the importance of the statement. We support that proposal.
The proposals currently on the table clarify how statements must be presented. Right now, the policy manual defines how statements are presented. It says what is acceptable. Audio and video recordings are generally acceptable right now, but we see in the board’s performance report that some statements are presented by videoconference or even on DVD.
We support this proposal, but we would like a clarification. In fact, this clause reads as follows:
If a victim or a person referred to in subsection 142(3) is not attending a hearing, their statement may be presented at the hearing in the form of a written statement, which may be accompanied by an audio or video recording, or in any other form provided for by regulation.
According to current practice, when there is a video or a recording, the statement must be reproduced. Would it be acceptable to have a written statement in addition to a video where a parent could show family scenes or pictures of their child? I think it is important to clarify that point because victims have expectations in that regard.
Like many other groups, our association proposes that the victims be authorized to read their statement by videoconference. We support that proposal.
We would like to submit other proposals regarding the victim impact statements. We would like to see the right to read a statement explicitly stated in the act. Section 722 of the Criminal Code deals with victim impact statements before the time of sentencing. We would like to see this right stipulated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
We would also like another addition to this act. In paragraph 12 of section 9.7 and section 9.8 of the Policy Manual of the Parole Board of Canada, in the event of a waiver or postponement, victims may present their statements to the board, if the offender does not attend the hearing and the board proceeds with a review. We recommend that this practice or policy be included in the act.
I have one last recommendation for an addition. In the policy of the board, paragraph 6 of section 10.3 allows a victim's support person to present the victim's statement at the hearing. In our view, that is a great practice. It humanizes the process and facilitates the testimony of victims. Once again, that should be more than a policy; it should be a right for victims.
I will now talk about the amendments to the discretionary disclosure of information on the offender's temporary absence, the related conditions and destination. We support those proposals. There are also proposals on the disclosure of the correctional plan. We have some concerns about that. I just want to attest to that here.
Victims have been asking for a long time to have access to a lot more information, specifically on the risks associated with the detained person and the rehabilitation programs that the person is taking in the institution. The correctional plan may contain medical, psychological and psychiatric information, which is protected under the Privacy Act.
I would also like to remind you that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, chaired by Mr. DeVillers in 2000, had drawn attention at that time to the importance of continuing to apply the test weighing the rights of both parties. For the sake of clarity, let me quote Mr. DeVillers:
...because some of this information may be detailed and complex, it should be made available to victims or their families in a form adequate to assist them, while being minimally invasive of the offender's privacy rights.
These are complex and delicate issues. We therefore recommend that the committee call on the expertise of the board or of the Correctional Service for a balanced perspective and that privacy and safety issues be reviewed. That is our proposal.
The last item dealing with the transcription of discretionary information has to do with the transcription of parole hearings. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reviewed this issue in 2000. At the time, the committee concluded that parole hearings would not be transcribed and that it would be preferable or desirable that victims listen to the audio recordings of parole hearings. The ombudsman also made that suggestion. We have too in recent years. It comes back to the table often. That is why we are reiterating this proposal to amend the act so that victims can subsequently listen to the audio recordings of parole hearings, without keeping copies.
The last point has to do with amendments to the timeframe in life sentences. In 2010, the ombudsman made some proposals in that sense. The proposal on the table seeks to limit the number of automatic reviews for offenders who committed violent crimes, by extending the time between those reviews. I think Ms. Lee did a good job of explaining the resulting hardship for the families of victims, especially in the case of life or very long sentences. Perhaps I can explain this further.
I will just say that we know that victims have to be very brave to keep going to parole hearings. Of course, it places a heavy burden on victims.
We believe that what Bill C-479 proposes would make it possible to address the needs of those victims. However, such measures should not be applied arbitrarily and without being able to take into account the changes or progress that justify offenders' right to a new review.
February 25th, 2014 / 4 p.m.
President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes
Could you give me two minutes to talk about the last point or will I be able to explain it later?
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes
Okay, I will explain it later.
4 p.m.
President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes
In terms of the time that has to pass before a schedule I offender can apply for parole again, we think it could be harmful to society and victims.
It is preferable that victims be under supervision in the case of gradual release and that there be monitoring. It is risky to release persons without having them on parole or without supervising them in the community. We do not believe that this ensures the protection of society or victims. As a result, we do not support the proposal's underlying principles.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Madame Gaudreault, thank you.
Maintenant, Mr. Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association. You have 10 minutes.
4 p.m.
Mike McCormack President, Toronto Police Association
Thank you.
Good afternoon and thanks for the invitation to come up and speak before this committee on this very important piece of legislation.
I'm here on behalf of the 8,000 members of the Toronto Police Association and also on behalf of Karen Fraser. She wanted to come up with me to Ottawa, but she couldn't make it as unfortunately she was in Florida for the last several months, had a fall, broke her neck, and is now confined to a wheelchair.
I appreciate that my time is short so let me give you important context as to why we in Toronto support this bill.
One of our own police officers, Constable Michael Sweet, was murdered on March 14, 1980, by Craig Munro. Michael Sweet was only 30 years of age, and he was survived by his 29-year-old wife and three children, aged one, four, and six.
Now, all murders are brutal, but the murder of Michael Sweet was particularly brutal and cruel. As he pleaded for his life, Michael Sweet begged Craig Munro to think about Michael's children. Munro did not care, and after abusing Constable Sweet even further, Munro let Constable Sweet bleed to death.
Craig Munro made a decision that day. The passage of time does not change that decision. The pain and anguish of Michael's widow, children, parents, brothers, and sisters continue to this day. They do not get parole from the suffering.
Munro already had an extensive criminal record. He was a very dangerous and violent man. He was charged and convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Life means life.
After 25 years, Munro was eligible for parole, but parole does not change a life sentence. What it does, however, is potentially relieve an offender from the full consequences of their life sentence and their murderous act.
We are all committed to the open court principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done if our criminal justice system is going to command public respect. The parole system is an integral part of our criminal justice system. It is the back end of the sentencing process. Parole is not a private remedy. Parole is a public remedy, and every aspect of the parole system must be as transparent as the rest of the criminal justice system.
For murderers like Craig Munro, privacy rights in parole hearings cannot be greater than what they were during their trial and sentencing hearing. To the contrary, they should be less, because at trial Mr. Munro was presumed innocent. At a parole hearing there is no such presumption. Quite the opposite, he is a convicted murderer, and the difference is significant.
Mr. Munro has had three parole hearings: February 26, 2009; March 16, 2010; and March 30, 2011. His fourth parole hearing was scheduled for August 2012, but his privileges were revoked on August 28, 2012, because he breached conditions of his unescorted temporary absences, which we believe he should never have received from the parole board in the first place.
In addressing Bill C-479, let me start with the proposed section 144.1, which states:
If a transcript of a hearing has been made, a copy of it shall, on written request, be provided by the Board free of charge to the victim, a member of the victim’s family or the offender.
Time does not permit, but we have been stunned, as have Michael Sweet's widow and children, at the changing testimony of Craig Munro at each of his parole hearings before different panels of the parole board. This has led to inconsistent and contradictory findings of the board placing Craig Munro on the fast track to freedom. But for his own predictable breaches, he would have been paroled by now.
The anguish and despair this causes to Craig Munro's victims are extreme. They see and hear for themselves the lies and the deception of the different stories Munro tells to different panels of the parole board, but the parole board does not.
In our experience we have never seen a transcript of a parole board hearing. We do know the hearings are recorded. All of our attempts to obtain a copy of audio recordings of Mr. Munro's parole board hearings so that we could prepare a transcript at our own expense have been denied to us and to the victims on the basis of Munro's privacy rights.
These are public hearings. We were at all three parole hearings. Members of the media were at some of the hearings, and there is nothing private about this nor should there be.
In our respectful view, while we support this proposed amendment, it can be improved by amending proposed section 144.1 to include a copy of the audio recording of the hearing in the event that a transcript is not available.
The annual reviews for those offenders convicted of first-degree murder cause enormous hardship for the victims. No sooner is one parole hearing over than the victims have to prepare new victim impact statements and confront the person responsible for the loved one's murder, as we've heard from the other witness. For many family victims, not to attend a parole hearing is unthinkable. To do so would amount to abandoning their loved ones. Such a possibility is unspeakable. Unless there is some material change in circumstances, a violent offender or murderer sentenced to life, after their first post-25-year parole hearing, should not be entitled to another hearing for five years and certainly for not less than three years.
Without going through each section of the bill, I will say that we support extending the period of time between each hearing. We have not had a chance to review the 100-plus offences in schedule I regarding the meaning of “an offence involving violence”, but in principle, this legislative change is necessary.
With respect to subsection 130(3) and proposed subsection 131(1.1) as it relates to gating applications—that is, keeping the offender in jail beyond two-thirds of the statutory release date—we ask you to consider, for context only, the case of Karla Homolka. She received a 12-year sentence, so she reached her statutory release date after eight years. She was gated and stayed in jail for her full 12 years, to her warrant expiry date. At minimum, extending the review time from one year to two years is a must, but once you meet the criteria for gating in the first place after spending so much time in jail to begin with, absent a material change in circumstances, why should we, the taxpayers of Canada, pay a dime for a further hearing?
We fully support proposed subsections 140(5.1), 140(5.2), and 140(10.1). With respect to proposed subsection 140(5.1), you might consider changing the positioning of some of the sentences. The second complete sentence reads, “The Board or its designate shall permit a victim or a member of his or her family to attend as an observer...”. That is the important point. We fully support this.
We are concerned, however, that the first sentence of the proposed subsection detracts from this, because it deals with a question of the board determining “whether to permit a victim...to attend as an observer”. Either it is mandatory or it is not. You may want to bring greater clarity to this, given the ingenuity of lawyers to exploit an arguable ambiguity. Nothing personal....
The overarching principle expressed earlier is that, to the extent practicable, parole hearings must be open and transparent. When an offender is seeking a public remedy from the parole board—that is, to be released back into the community—the offender cannot be permitted to hide his or her records under the pretext of a privacy interest. If Mr. Munro wanted to stay in jail, he could have his privacy, but the moment they seek parole to be relieved of the consequences of their very public act—a murder of a police officer or a violent offence—and be released back into the community, they have no privacy rights. We fully support the disclosure to the victims as stated in proposed subparagraphs 142(1)(a)(v), (vi), and (vii).
We also support proposed subsection 140(11), but leave you with this observation. If the victim cannot attend a hearing, they “may” submit a written and/or video impact statement to the board, but you might consider adding that the board shall receive it as evidence, so that the victim has the option of submitting such a statement, and if the victim so chooses, it is mandatory that the board receive it into evidence, underscoring its importance.
Finally, there is proposed section 140.1 about the offender refusing to attend the review hearing and waiving his right to a hearing. Let me leave you with this factual scenario. Michael Sweet was a Toronto police officer murdered in Toronto in the line of duty. Craig Munro was from Toronto and the trial was held in Toronto, but Craig Munro is incarcerated in British Columbia. The Sweet family must fly from Toronto to Vancouver and then travel to the B.C. Interior to attend Mr. Munro's parole hearings. This is a very expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining exercise. On one occasion, at the last moment, after all the flights and accommodations were booked, we were told that Mr. Munro might seek an adjournment.
The point is, you may want to consider a separate provision when there's a significant geographical gap between where the victims reside and where the government chooses to incarcerate the prisoner. Victims don't book flights and accommodations and make arrangements with their employer at the last minute.
As you know, the federal government has a program to pick up the expenses for the victims, so Canadian taxpayers have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being wasted. Offenders convicted of serious criminal offences, who lack empathy and feelings, cannot cancel parole hearings at the last minute without consequences in this regard. Victims should be consulted when the parole hearings are scheduled, and their schedule accommodated to the extent practicable. So if there's a window—
