Public Safety Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I can send it by email.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Oh, okay.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I can read it out as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

In the meantime, read it again. It's a short motion.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

All right.

…that the Committee also study a more recent case of a repeat offender who had committed violent sexual offences against young women and then committed another offence while on parole; and that the study be renamed the study on the Parole Board of Canada and the circumstances surrounding repeat sexual crimes against women by certain sex offenders.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. I still don't have it on my...motion, but the first question would be whether Shannon sees that as a friendly amendment.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, it's a sure thing. I see it as friendly and totally acceptable like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Go ahead, Pam.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

The case was certainly horrible, except that he wasn't granted parole, so it would be impossible to do the two. We're looking at one case where we're continuing a study on someone who was granted parole, and it involves the Parole Board, whereas, in fact, this person was denied parole twice, and he was out on statutory release. They're two completely different cases.

I'm very supportive of continuing the work we were doing in the last session on the study we had started, but if we start expanding it.... It's very, very different. Statutory release is something that's prescribed in the law, so we can't study that.

I think we should move forward with the study Shannon has put forward, but I wouldn't be supportive of expanding it, for a number of reasons: not because what happened isn't concerning, but because they're very different cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Kristina.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I completely understand what Ms. Damoff is saying.

My only concern is that witnesses we heard from couldn't reveal certain details because Marylène Levesque's case was still under investigation. It does no harm to broaden the study. Even if the two cases are different, we could seek out other information in an effort to understand things.

That's why I proposed we broaden the study to include other cases, even if they aren't all the same. This kind of thing happens all the time. There will never be two cases that are exactly alike. I think broadening the study would be well received.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other conversation?

Glen.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I would agree with [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

We can't hear you, Glen.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Sorry. Hold on. I'll try this....

Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes. That's much better.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Ms. Michaud, I would tend to agree that the issue around the tragic death of Ms. Levesque does speak to a larger Parole Board issue and parole violations. While we want to focus on that one, it might help us frame a larger issue if we can find some other aspects of the whole Parole Board and how they do their work to improve public safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Joël.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Harris raised his hand before me. If not, I can go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead, Joël. You're on.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Very well.

I agree with Ms. Damoff. While the case Ms. Michaud flagged is troubling, the two cases are completely different. One involves the Parole Board of Canada, and the other involves statutory release, as prescribed by law. We would be undertaking a study of a radically different case. I don't think that was the purpose of the original study the House referred to the committee, which had to do with the Parole Board of Canada and Marylène Levesque's murder.

To my mind, they are two completely distinct cases. That doesn't mean one is any more important than the other; they're both equally important. However, we would be taking the study in a whole other direction, at the risk of watering it down. In this case, we are talking about the actions of the Parole Board of Canada and the judgment of the board members and officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Jack.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I thank you, Kristina, for bringing that forward. I believe it is a very important and disturbing case. It speaks to something that is also a live issue in the other case, but I think the role of the Parole Board was the concern in the Marylène Levesque case. In the case of someone who is released on statutory release, the Parole Board does not have any role in determining that at all. That's something that is a function of their time, their sentence; if you reach a certain date, then you're a statutory release. The Parole Board can't keep you in.

I think the aspect that's common to both...because what was disturbing to me about the Marylène Levesque case was the fact that there was no rehabilitation actually carried out of the individual who was involved, etc. The real question is what happens inside Correctional Service Canada, particularly for sex offenders who may or may not co-operate in any kind of activity of rehabilitation or programs. That's something that I believe is an important study but a separate study that we should undertake. I would recommend that this study be considered as a separate study. However long the Levesque study is going to go, that's something we'll have to determine ourselves, but I don't think it's even the same....

It's not about the Parole Board, so I'm not sure whether it's in order, Chair. I'm not going to ask for a ruling, but perhaps you want to give us some advice on that. It seems to me the subject of a separate study, and a very important one, probably equally important to the Parole Board role and the Parole Board study. In fact, it's something that we really ought to get our hands on, because one of the failures of our corrections system is how it handles the rehabilitative mandate it has.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The chair is in a bit of a dilemma here, because the mover of the original motion saw the amendment to the motion as a friendly amendment, and therefore incorporated it into the original motion. The arguments have gone now along the line that these are actually separate considerations, possibly related at one level, but mostly separate considerations.

At this point, it's one motion. Unless the movers say otherwise, that's what's on the floor.

We have Pam, and then Kristina.

You're on mute. You are having a John McKay moment.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I am. I'm having that kind of day.

Could we get clarification from the clerk on whether...? Basically, what you're saying is that Shannon is actually moving her own motion and incorporating Kristina's into her motion, so it's only Shannon moving a motion? Is that right?