Good evening, distinguished committee members.
Thank you for inviting me to share my point of view. I hope that I will be able to provide you with a vision that unfortunately is often forgotten. The vision is of those close to the victims, or of the victims themselves, when they survive, of course.
My university training is in criminology and law. I have worked in a number of community organizations dealing with upholding rights. I have spent these last eight years helping families and loved ones of persons who have been murdered. We have more than 800 members, just in Quebec. I have worked with the Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues, or AFPAD, as its general manager. There, I have met with courageous and resilient families, but there is unfortunately much to be criticized.
Those in these situations must go through shock, grief and the media's coverage of the drama that afflicts them. They are hardly ever prepared for it. A long, often unfamiliar legal process follows. That process often happens months, even years, after the tragedy. It drains them financially because a large majority have to pay the costs of the legal process.
Then comes the sentencing and incarceration of the person who has torn a dear one from a family and loved ones. The notion of justice must be completely redefined. It is difficult for them to understand the legal implications and the rights the offenders are given. A few years ago, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights came into effect. But unfortunately, the rights given to the criminals, no matter how violent they may be, are greater than those given to those close to the victims. This is a constitutional matter that is hard for those broken by the tragedy to understand. Unfortunately, our legal system gives priority to the rights of the offenders. So the extent of some rights set out in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights needs to be better understood.
How does the right to information operate? Families and loved ones receive little information about the dangers. At least, that was the case with Marylène's loved ones or those of the previous victim—we must not forget her. More consideration must be given to the victims' loved ones; they must be consulted and what they have to say about the impact of the crime must be heard.
Now I will talk about the right to protection. How were the loved ones of Mr. Gallese's previous victim protected? What was done to protect Marylène's life? In my opinion, their right to life and their right to live in security, their constitutional rights, were completely disregarded.
Marylène Levesque had the right to be protected. She had a right to her life and a right to the security of her person. We all saw how the tragedy played out in the media. Nevertheless, what I take from the findings of the Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, is that, on January 22, 2020, Marylène Levesque was murdered in Sainte-Foy, Quebec, by an offender on day parole. The offender, Mr. Gallese, then pleaded guilty to the charge of first degree murder and was convicted. On February 3, 2020, the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada convened a national board of investigation.
These were the conclusions. First, apparently, the decisions made by the members who granted the conditional release on March 26, 2019 and September 19, 2019 met all training requirements and demonstrated the level of knowledge necessary to perform their tasks. Let me tell you that I do not agree. Community resources, such as AFPAD or the shelters for women who are victims of violence, are never invited to the training sessions for board members or Correctional Service Canada on the impacts of crime. Families are therefore resigned to the fact that they have only one right, the right to read a statement that takes all their energy and that plunges them back into the tragedy.
Second, apparently, the Parole Board members correctly applied the criteria set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. They applied the risk assessment framework, as set out in the manual, and they had at their disposal all the relevant and available information for sound decision-making. In my opinion, the board members had neither the knowledge nor the appropriate training to read the signs, the precursors of the violence that was clearly apparent. Training on the cycle of violence and the expertise of our organizations could have been very useful for that decision or in the training of those board members.
It is very easy to avoid responsibility by taking refuge in statistics and telling ourselves that these things rarely happen. In my opinion, this was one stolen life too many. It should have been protected by a system that should prioritize the safety of society over the rights of an individual who had already been found guilty of homicide, the most serious crime in Canada.
Here is what I take from those observations. They are a fine example of the board avoiding responsibility. According to the report, nothing could have been foreseen. That is an insult for the loved ones of the victims and for a society that believes that is protected each time a dangerous criminal is released. It has that belief despite the danger that he represents, despite the heinous crimes he has committed, and despite the improbability of rehabilitation.
I suggest that there should be an acknowledgement of regret in some form that is more transparent and more open to a culture of change, focused on respect and on the protection of loved ones and potential victims. We cannot be opposed to improvements, of course, but we can't just have recommendations based only on greater oversight or enforcement. It's a little fanciful to think that such oversight can be provided to thousands of inmates. You realize that just by looking at the number of women who have been killed in Quebec. How were those women protected? No, this is not about those who reoffend in all cases. But if we are going to talk about protection, increasing staff and more funding for halfway houses, a lot of good work has to have been done in advance. The problem actually comes before the release, during the risk assessment. That requires professional training and skills that are up to the task of detecting the potential dangers. So I am recommending some urgent changes.
First, decisions must be made exclusively with a view to protecting victims or potential victims when there are any doubts or any possibility of harm or reoffending.
Second, board members and those involved in violence against women need more training, especially in terms of the cycles of violence and the effects on community resources. The Barreau du Québec, of which I am a member, along with other professional bodies, requires a minimum number of continuing education hours.
Third, we must use the example of some administrative tribunals—