Public Safety Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You also mentioned that there must be a law, a separate law.

I've put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-342—and a colleague of mine has also put forward another one, Bill C-351—that would require that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum-security classification. It also would repeal the Liberal's “least restrictive environment” standard for assigning inmates to prisons and restore the language of “necessary restrictions”.

I thought, perhaps, you could comment on that.

[Tim Danson]

As it relates to the dangerous offender indeterminate designation, they should be in maximum security. That's when we're talking about the most dangerous offenders. As I say, we have to remember that the criteria under the Criminal Code to be designated a dangerous offender is a very high standard that the Crown has to prove on medical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There's our starting point.

Of course those types of people, when the prosecution can prove that criteria beyond a reasonable doubt, should be in maximum security.

We still have the Parole Board. This is really important. I know this is really important when you go through the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, even in the more recent Bissonnette decision. There has to be some escape route in terms of not throwing away the key forever. You have to have a process in place, which is the parole hearing process.

As long as that is in place, the rule should be that these people spend the rest of their lives in maximum security.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Danson.

Chair, if we could, I would like to see unanimous consent to have another round of questioning.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I was under the impression that we were at the second round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

It would be the third round, Mr. Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We're in the second round.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I respect your decision. I'm an intruder on your committee.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Since we only have an hour, I am hoping we could get unanimous consent for another round of questions before the voting starts. It would be a third round.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We'll continue.

Thank you, Mr. Baldinelli, for your questions and, Mr. Danson, for your answers.

We're moving now to Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Danson, I would like to echo what Mr. Baldinelli said about your work on behalf of the families.

I know I speak for a lot of residents of Niagara when I say thank you for your service to the families and also to the community that, as a whole, went through a great deal—not to undermine what your clients went through. Thank you for continuing to act for your clients. It's very important not only to them but to our community as well.

We granted you more time for your opening statement. I think you still might have cut it a bit short.

Can I lend you some of my time? Were there other points you wanted to elaborate upon from your opening statement?

[Tim Danson]

There is a point the families wanted me to make if time permitted, which is that, when we look at the issue you're dealing with in terms of the transfer, the families want to emphasize that solutions and dealing with victims' rights have to be looked at in a broader framework and not piecemeal.

A point they did want me to bring to the committee's attention in respect of the greater picture for understanding victims' rights is that the families are deeply disturbed by Parliament's failure to re-enact section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bissonnette to strike down the section.

For the families, and I'm sure for most Canadians, it is outrageous that Paul Bernardo's period of parole ineligibility was not increased by a single nanosecond for the brutal murder of Kristen French. In terms of parole ineligibility, Paul Bernardo got a free pass for the second murder. That shocked the good conscience of all Canadians, in my view.

It's important to appreciate that the court struck down section 745.51 because of the stacking of periods of parole ineligibility in blocks of 25 years. I could draft you a new 745.51 that is constitutionally bulletproof and meets all the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada.

When we speak in terms of transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons, this needs to be considered in that larger legal context dealing with dangerous offenders at large. That framework should also include amending the CCRA to make parole hearings for offenders like Paul Bernardo every five years instead of every two years. They wanted me to make the point that there has to be a greater, comprehensive response to the victims' issues.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

If you have a draft of that potential amendment, I was wondering if you could send that to the committee.

[Tim Danson]

I probably do have a draft somewhere, but I'm happy to do that for the committee and send it to you.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

If you don't have it, I won't hold you to it, but if it is available—and I think I speak for myself—I would like to see it. I think the importance you're talking about is precision in amending the legislation, and that the offenders that you and your clients—the families—are talking about are very specific and very small in nature versus a broader change to the Criminal Code.

I have perhaps a more broad question. Can you tell the committee how you think victim services in Canada need to be improved?

[Tim Danson]

That's an interesting question. I work with many of the victim services, but they are, in my view, heavily circumscribed by the policy directives within Correctional Service Canada. I think that at least the people who I deal with are good people. They try to assist the victims. However, I think they have their hands tied behind their backs.

We get notices of parole hearings without any regard to what.... Let me back up. I'll give you an example. With respect to the transfer of Paul Bernardo, they happened to do it at the same time as the anniversary date of Leslie Mahaffy's murder. You would think that, in a case of this profile and this importance, they would appreciate that maybe that's not the time to do the transfer.

When you get notices of parole hearings, they'll say that you need to have your victim impact statement in within, let's say, two or three weeks, even though the hearing may be many months away. There is no sensitivity or feeling that, in preparing these victim impact statements, the victims take this very seriously. I think for anyone who participates or is at the parole hearings of Paul Bernardo, and certainly for the other people I represent, a very serious effort is put into these victim impact statements. There has to be more sensitivity in terms of the timeline for those to be completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Danson.

We'll move on to Mr. Fortin, please.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Danson, I would first like to clarify a point with you. I thought I understood that your position was that psychopathic criminals like Paul Bernardo should remain in a maximum security penitentiary for the duration of their sentence, without being eligible for parole.

Afterwards, I heard you say that security clearance should be assessed every five years rather than every two years. If an assessment is done every five years, that means that there's a possibility of a transfer to a medium‑security prison. Could you clarify that for me, please?

[Tim Danson]

Thank you for the question. I apologize. It must be my failure. I didn't communicate my view clearly.

The five years that I was referring to was not the reclassification for transfers from one penitentiary to another. I was referring to the continuity of parole hearings and not the transfers. For the parole hearings for offenders like Paul Bernardo, once they hit the 25-year mark there is a parole hearing. Instead of the parole hearing thereafter happening every two years for the rest of their lives, it should be every five years.

With respect to parole, while it's my view—and it was the view of Associate Chief Justice LeSage—that Paul Bernardo should spend the rest of his natural life in prison, that's not suggesting he is not entitled to appear before the Parole Board and persuade them of a different view. I think that, in order for all of us to be constitutionally sound, these offenders, no matter what they've done, must always have the right to go to an independent tribunal like the Parole Board and try to persuade them to release them.

That's why I've been emphasizing that we need much more transparency. I think there should be legislative change in this regard, recognizing that.... Actually, it's already recognized by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that these parole hearings are integral to the sentencing and the criminal justice system, and that they're public and everything has to be transparent. Then at least we can evaluate whether or not the system is functioning properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We're going to move to Mr. Julian, please, for two and a half minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Danson, you talked about the victim impact statements, the fact that there isn't enough notice and that often, in terms of parole applications, victims are asked to prepare what is a gut-wrenching victim impact statement—of that we have no doubt—sometimes with a few weeks' notice, but that potentially won't be used for months in the future. It's a gut-wrenching process because the victims' families believe they're really the bulwark against a criminal psychopath being released into society and creating other victims.

What would be an appropriate time in terms of advising families for victim impact statements? How long is a process that is reasonable? How can we make the justice system actually respond to the needs of victims?

[Tim Danson]

I think it should be recognized that they should have a good number of months to prepare, not weeks, and should not receive a form letter that it has to be done in two weeks. In fact, we take the time that we need and they allow it, but it creates huge pressure on the families when they get an official letter from the Parole Board and from the Correctional Service that they have a limited period of time, so I think they need a number of months.

The other thing that needs to be recognized—and I have seen this a lot, especially as Bernardo's now coming up for his third parole hearing and I have other offenders who have had five, six or seven—is that the only constant in the parole process are the victims themselves, because we have a different composition of the Parole Board with each different hearing. It's the families, more than anybody else, who are able to identify how the offender is manipulating the system and saying one thing to one Parole Board panel and something to another Parole Board panel—and they don't know.

That's why in our application, which as I say is before the Supreme Court of Canada, we want public disclosure of the audio recordings of previous parole hearings and the evidence and the testimony of the offender, so that the victim impact statements can be very informative and helpful in assisting the Parole Board in effectively adjudicating the issues before them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. That's your time.

We move now to Mrs. Thomas, please, for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Danson, thank you for your time today and for taking this opportunity to speak on behalf of the families. We very much appreciate that.

My first question for you has to do with the classification system and the reclassification of an inmate. Right now the language that is used to determine that is an inmate is supposed to be in the “least restrictive” area or the “least restrictive measures” are supposed to be applied, but the former language was “most appropriate”. I'm wondering if you can explain for us the difference in this use of language and what you would advise is needed.