Public Safety Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Fortin, I was generous. Believe me.

Thank you, Mr. Danson. Hopefully, someone else will pick that up.

Can we go to Mr. Julian, please?

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

Thanks.

Mr. Danson, in your earlier answer to my question, you talked about the impact on victims and the amount of time they get as notice for preparing new victim impact statements. You implied there is a form letter that goes out. That's unbelievable to me when I think of what those families have been through.

To what extent do we need to overhaul Correctional Service and the Parole Board so that they are trauma-informed? What kinds of supports have the French and Mahaffy families received from the federal government as they've gone through this? Have they received psychological or mental health support?

To what extent are we providing supports to victims going through and reliving this trauma?

[Tim Danson]

In terms of the French and Mahaffy families, there's no support, other than a person with victims' services at Correctional and the Parole Board who is there to provide information. Other than that, they're on their own. In their particular case—I've been working with them over the past 30 years—we're taking very seriously the preparation of these victim impact statements. It's through this process that....

One of the most gut-wrenching things for the families is when they're sitting in a parole hearing and hear the testimony of the offender. Questions are asked by the parole board. Two years later, they're at a different panel and can see how the system is being manipulated and how no one is catching it. That's very tough on the families. Talk about victim impact. That has a huge impact.

This takes me back to my transparency point and to access to information requests, so that important evidence can be presented, and the manipulation and contradictions identified. A parole board can use it as it will. However, often, if not for the victims, it won't even know these inconsistencies exist.

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

Would it help the French and Mahaffy families if they were provided supports, even now, having relived this trauma numerous times? Would it make a difference if supports were provided?

[Tim Danson]

It's a good question. It's something I haven't recently talked to the families about.

At this stage, they would much prefer just to be left alone and to never hear the names of Paul Bernardo or Karla Homolka. They recognize that, when these parole hearings come up, they have to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Danson, thank you.

That was a good question, Mr. Julian.

Now we're moving on to Mr. Motz, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Mr. Danson, thank you for being here. As others have said, thank you for your continued advocacy for the families of the victims of these horrific crimes.

I have a couple of questions.

You indicated in your opening remarks that there needs to be some change. There's the shock of this to the Canadian public. Can you make any suggestions?

Many people in my riding and across the country have suggested that the government has the full right and authority to insert itself into this. The minister can revoke this particular transfer. Is that something that the families would find to be of value to them, given your comments today?

[Tim Danson]

Absolutely.

I respect and the families respect that to a very large extent, the independence of Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board—the Parole Board being different because it's a quasi-judicial tribunal, although some people would quarrel with that language.

When we come back to what we said earlier, that the Prime Minister and the former minister of public safety and others were talking about shocking and incomprehensible decisions and then said there's nothing they can do about it, I don't buy that. The buck stops with the government. It stops with the minister. It stops with the Prime Minister. They're the ones who are answerable to the public. If they see something that is rotten or that is “shocking and incomprehensible”, absolutely it would be the exception to the rule, but they need to insert themselves, take a leadership role and correct it.

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

I appreciate those comments.

Mr. Danson, also in line with the frequency of parole hearings, you indicated the negative impact that this has on families who deal with this. I know that from my own past experience in law enforcement.

With regard to the frequency with which the current system handles parole hearings for designated dangerous offenders, is it something you think should be extended so that it's not every two years—it could be every five or greater—especially for someone in this circumstance who has shown their incapacity to be changed?

[Tim Danson]

Absolutely. As I said earlier, you have no idea how quickly two years goes by. There's the emotional trauma that the families go through to prepare their victim impact statements, to then attend at the hearings and give their victim impact statements, and then all of a sudden within a year and a half they're getting notice of the next parole hearing—which on average is every two years—without any change in circumstances for the offender.

In my view, they're entitled to their parole hearing—and we're talking about these offenders like Paul Bernardo, not the majority—but it shouldn't be every two years. I recommended anywhere between five and seven years.

Even at seven years, what I would propose in terms of any legislative amendments would be that, if the offender or their case management team within Correctional Service Canada believe there's been a breakthrough medically or a significant change in circumstances, the offender can apply to the Parole Board to have an earlier hearing. That's so that you have all of the constitutional protections and the due process protections in place.

I believe it should be seven years for someone like Bernardo, after their first hearing. However, they have to have the opportunity to apply to the Parole Board to move that up if there's a change in circumstances.

In this case, we've had two parole hearings for Bernardo. There's been no change in circumstances, so why put the families through this every two years?

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

Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.

Mr. Danson, Public Safety Canada and Correctional Service Canada claim that the Privacy Act places significant limits on their capacity to share offender information. The former minister of public safety repeated that excuse in the media.

However, the Privacy Commissioner has directly rebuked that claim, noting that the commissioner of corrections can share information in exceptional circumstances.

Can you discuss your opinion with respect to how the personal information of dangerous offenders that is normally protected under the Privacy Act should be handled to prioritize victims' rights over offenders' rights in these exceptional circumstances?

[Tim Danson]

First of all, I reject that we require exceptional circumstances. That's not the law. That's not what the statute says. I think that's important because Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board are always looking for these exceptional circumstances. The way they define “exceptional circumstances” would mean that there are no circumstances in which they would ever make disclosure of the personal information of an offender, even though it's the personal information that's going to be disclosed at a public hearing.

In the Dagg case, the Supreme Court of Canada says that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act have to be read in harmony. The purpose—and I just have it in front of me—of the Access to Information Act is as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.

That's the legislative purpose.

Then section 19 of the act takes you to the Privacy Act, and it's the Privacy Act that then says that they can disclose the information if the “head of the institution feels that “the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure”.

It's clear that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We have to end there.

Thank you, Mr. Danson. We appreciate that.

Now we're going to move on to the final questioner, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, again, Mr. Danson, for staying longer than scheduled. It has been helpful testimony.

Last week, Mr. Motz spoke about the minister being able to issue an order and revoke the transfer. However, we heard testimony at this committee that there is no such legal mechanism to do so. Although it may feel right—because, certainly, the public and your clients' friends and families want to see that happen—it would actually cause even more upheaval to do something in the public realm that could not withstand a court challenge and would have Paul Bernardo in the news even more with more court cases.

I just think that it should be clarified that it was clearly said in this committee that an order from the minister on an individual offender's classification or transfer would not be a legal order that CSC would be able to accept, and it would certainly not withstand a challenge. I just think that should be clarified.

When we're talking about notification for victims and victims' families, particularly around transfers, we heard testimony—and I certainly agree—that the issue of families finding out in the news or on the day of is completely unacceptable.

I think there could be challenges around the physical transfer taking place and wanting to ensure that nobody interferes in the physical transfer, but there has to be a better balance. Do you think that there would be an opportunity to, for example, say that a transfer is imminent or that something is going to happen but without, maybe, the specific dates, times or locations? Would that be a better mechanism to give time, for example, to your clients and the friends of the victims, who were very clear that they needed time to process this?

Could there be a better balance in terms of making sure that the operational standard is upheld while also giving time for families, victims and their friends to process what might be occurring?

[Tim Danson]

From my clients' perspectives, the issue is not the actual date of the transfer. It is the shock of finding out after the fact. As long as there is appropriate consultation prior to the transfer so that they have the ability to absorb it and say what they need to say, they don't need to know the actual date.

I don't accept.... I've heard the argument before that they may be concerned about someone trying to interfere with the actual transfer. To me, that's a bit rich. They can handle these transfers without worrying about people trying to stop them.

Having said that, the issue is not about knowing the exact date, time or mechanism of the transfer. It's, rather, about having advance notice.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Certainly I understand, in this case, that the date and time may not be an issue, but I could see, in the case of organized crime, for example, that you would certainly want to make sure there are some protections around who knows what and when. However, there would be victims included as well, so there has to be a better mechanism and process while making sure.... Again, this case may not be the example, but as we've seen in Correctional Service Canada, sometimes these processes affect a variety of cases, a variety of offenders and a variety of risks, so I'm appreciative of your perspective on that.

In terms of the notification, we heard testimony from the victims' friends, as well, that they need additional supports as to how to even communicate their feelings prior to a decision being made. Do you have any experience in that realm with clients, not only in helping them prepare statements, if they even know a statement is needed, but also in allowing them to access services? I think my colleague Mr. Julian brought up, as well, the need for counselling to be able to process something that might be occurring or a change in an offender's status.

Is that something you've ever heard of or come across? Do you think it could be helpful?

[Tim Danson]

Yes, I have heard of it. I think it would be very helpful.

I was directing my comments toward the Frenches and the Mahaffys, where I spent significant amounts of time and worked with them, but obviously there are lots of victims who don't have counsel at all. I think it's very important that they have access to resources to help them emotionally. I think that's obviously the role, in my view, of victim services, and it should be properly funded.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Danson, that concludes our questions for you today.

Thank you for your input on a very emotional issue for everybody. We're certainly glad we were able to have you here, finally.

With that, I thank you. Hopefully we will have you back again sometime, but maybe on a better issue. Thank you.

[Tim Danson]

Great.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Committee members, the clerk circulated the committee budget earlier today.

The committee has completed its fourth meeting on the study of the rights of victims, declassification and the transfer of federal offenders. A project budget for this study in the amount of $3,000 was distributed by the clerk earlier today.

Do I have agreement to adopt the following motion?

That the proposed budget in the amount of $3,000, for the study of rights of victims of crime, reclassification and transfer of Federal Offenders, be adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Is the committee in agreement to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.