Colleagues, Madam Ombudsman, ladies and gentlemen, it's an honour to be here today before this committee to talk about the important amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that I proposed in Bill .
First, I'd like to acknowledge the honourable parliamentary secretary, MP , and those honourable members of this committee who rose to speak to Bill during the second reading in the House of Commons. I sincerely appreciate your commitment to victims and the comments you made during debate, and I have taken them to heart.
Mr. Chair, let me also recognize the good work of our professionals in our correctional system. They deserve our gratitude, particularly those at the Parole Board of Canada, who work hard and make extraordinarily difficult decisions to keep our communities safe.
Speaking of professionals, I'd like to thank and acknowledge Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who will speak to the committee after me today. I am grateful for her advice and wisdom in crafting this bill. Her work in the police services as deputy chief and in the community working with victims has been a tremendous asset to her current role—an asset to all Canadians and to me in the development of this bill.
I'd also like to make special note of my former legislative assistant, Stephan Rose, who's here today. He took the day off his present job. He spent multiple hours helping me with this bill and deserves public commendation for his investment into helping victims in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off today—just as I have at every opportunity in the House of Commons to speak to this act to bring fairness for victims of violent offenders—by talking about the reasons I brought this bill forward. I know you may have heard it before, so I'll spare you all the details. However, for the record, it's what focused my efforts and instilled in me the passion for this bill.
Over the years since my election in 2006, I had a number of people call, email, and come to see me face to face about the imbalance in our justice system as it pertains to the treatment and rights of offenders versus those of victims. This became a policy concern of mine, which began conversations with my colleagues and ministers on what could be done.
However, none of my previous conversations so focused my efforts as did an unforgettable experience in the summer of 2010. Constituents from Ancaster, Ontario, the community in which I live, invited me to attend a hearing of the Parole Board of Canada with them. The matter at hand was the case of Jon Rallo, an offender who is the brother-in-law of my constituents, and the murderer of her sister, her niece, and her nephew. This well-regarded couple known for their generosity in the community wanted their federal representative to see first-hand what they had to go through on an annual or biennial basis for far too long, to see the extent of the voice they had been given primarily through the victim impact statement in that meeting. They wanted their federal representative to see all the aspects, raw as they are, of a parole board hearing. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the anguish of my constituent reading her victim impact statement was something one could not imagine without being present to experience such an event.
Every time Mr. Rallo has reapplied for parole under the current process, my constituents have been there. I joined them again in 2011 and again last summer, in 2013, at the federal penal institution at Gravenhurst, Ontario, where the most recent parole board hearing for Mr. Rallo took place. The hearings are never easy. Each time my constituent tried very hard to be composed, inevitably, before uttering a word, she'd start weeping as the memories of a crime committed over 30 years before always came flooding back. It was a grizzly triple murder: her sister, her niece, and her nephew had been murdered by her sister's husband, Mr. Rallo, violently and viciously. After killing his wife, this violent criminal suffocated his two young children, a six-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl. To this day, his son's body has never been recovered.
At each Parole Board of Canada hearing, my constituent would ask the same question of Mr. Rallo. Why did you kill your family, and what did you do with your son? She has yet to get a response. Despite being convicted on evidence that was very substantive and clear, Mr. Rallo does not feel any remorse, nor has he admitted any culpability. Each time, he has sat stone-faced through the victim impact statement.
Mr. Chairman, despite the obvious pain of my constituent, her husband, and her parents, they feel an overwhelming duty as a family to attend each hearing. They must do so to honour the memory of their daughter, sister, grandchildren, niece, and nephew.
Mr. Chairman, I believe they're an appropriate representation of every family that deals with a similar situation here in Canada. I can attest today that, having been robbed of their loved ones, certainly all victims I have spoken to have shared similar trauma, pain, and feelings of helplessness, as well as a steadfast feeling of duty.
For me, Mr. Chairman, this underscores so resoundingly that our federal parole process—unwittingly, I believe—makes the revictimization of victims and their families an all too frequent occurrence. Determined to help strengthen the voice of victims and modify the parole process, I talked to victim's advocates, law enforcement officials, and legal experts in researching this bill. It was a common theme that the provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that may have made sense in the past—it was established in 1992—no longer affect Canadian society today, in particular in offering respect and dignity to victims.
In developing a well-researched and well-thought-out bill, I spoke numerous times to the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. When her report came out last June, entitled “Meeting the needs of victims of crime in Canada”, I took an extensive look at it. Her recommendations on the rights of victims to have good communication throughout the system, the use of technology for victim statements presented at parole board hearings, and ensuring that the parole process is more accommodating to victims' needs, are reflected in Bill . I will defer to her expertise to make these parallels more clearly.
However, it wasn't her expertise alone that underpinned this bill. My office and I spent a lot of time speaking with legal experts, and we believe this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation. It has brought support to the modernization of nine provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
This is reflected from a look at what other jurisdictions are doing as well. The Victims' Rights Act of New Zealand, instituted in 2002, has been a model for the world. Under the corresponding provisions of New Zealand's Parole Act 2002, rights of victims are also enshrined, much as is being proposed in Bill . Similarly, the basis of the act is support and respect for victims.
In 2009, the New Zealand Ministry of Justice launched an extensive public consultation to further enhance its victim support within the justice system. Mr. Chair, that's why I was very happy that the parliamentary secretary and the minister did this just last summer.
I won't list every area of commonality. However, one of the areas they looked at is echoed in Bill C-479, which is the modernization that I proposed to reflect the use of technology, through video conference and links to oral statements delivered in regional offices via telecom. This is expressly addressed to ensure that victims have a strong voice in the process, but also to mitigate the revictimization of victims and their families. The victims of crime reform bill, introduced to the Parliament of New Zealand, includes this provision.
Mr. Chairman, the New Zealand victims of crime reform bill that was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2013 included improvements to their victim notification system, which are also reflective of provisions in Bill to Canadian victims' increased access to information about how offenders are progressing with their correctional plans and pertinent documents.
However, our Kiwi friends aren't the only ones looking at this issue. The report by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime looked at U.S. legislation at the federal and state level, the U.K. code of practice, and 2012 European directives on victims support and protection were also studied.
I raise these, not to suggest that we in Canada should be followers rather than an international leader on victims' rights, especially when it comes to victims of violent offenders, but because they illustrate that this is a debate taking place around the world in other commonwealth and allied countries. Our efforts here today are timely and appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, it's imperative to understand that this bill is targeted at helping victims have a more clear voice within our justice system as well as giving the Parole Board of Canada more tools to deal with offenders. However, this is not regarding just any offenders. Please keep in mind that when we discuss this bill and the new latitude we're giving to the Parole Board of Canada that these are offenders who have caused grievous physical harm; maimed someone for life; or were attempting to murder, or did murder, victims or a victim. I'm talking primarily—not entirely exclusively, but primarily—about the likes of the Clifford Olsons, and his devastatingly painful victim count; the David Shearings, who killed an entire family; the David Dobsons, who savagely killed Darlene Prioriello; and the Munro brothers, who shot, held, and killed Constable Michael Sweet.
The parole board should have the capability to extend reviews in the kinds of cases where heinous crimes are committed and parole is either a faint option or a very distant one. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, after the Parole Board of Canada grants parole and the offender breaches parole or outright reoffends, they should have more discretion than they presently have now.
This is not just a matter of victim fairness, but of overall public safety as well.
Mr. Chairman, for me this is where it comes full circle. When we look at the facts and the previous experience of countless victims, we can look at the precedents and at what other countries are doing, and we can debate the language in the clauses of the bill, but ultimately when we're talking about victims of violent crime, we're talking about people. Victims are not a number, nor are they a burden to our system. The justice system is daunting enough, and victims should never feel they're just a cog in the process. It's very personal. It's very emotional.
I urge the committee, throughout the study of Bill , to never lose sight of this point. Yes, let's study the bill. Yes, let's make sure it makes the modernizations to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that are necessary.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I welcome any amendment that is well-intended and will strengthen the language and the principle of this bill, so yes, let's work together to strengthen it with amendments that are required, but let us never ever dishonour or diminish the experience of people most affected by the perpetrators of violent crime—the people who never asked to be in this unfortunate circumstance and who would give anything to turn the clock back. These are the victims and Bill is for them.
Merci beaucoup.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Sweet. Let me say that I have attended parole board hearings as well, and it can certainly be a traumatic experience, there's no question about that. I don't think most people realize the professionalism and the amount of work that parole board appointees really put into a hearing. What you see at the hearing itself is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they do and what correctional officials do in terms of preparing the homework before you have the hearing.
To begin, Mr. Sweet, you know my concern with the avalanche of private members' bills that are coming forward from backbench Conservative members. I think there are something like 16 that impact the Criminal Code.
You are members of the government. It sounds like the parliamentary secretary, who is the representative of the minister here, is fully supportive of this bill. What I can't understand, for the life of me, is why these discussions on these private members' bills aren't done in a comprehensive way within the governing party and brought forward as comprehensive amendments rather than one-offs to the Criminal Code of Canada.
One error on our part as a committee, on a private member's bill, could in fact have the opposite effect of what was intended. I know that your intent here is value. We've had experience with this before. One private member's bill that was just dealt with at the justice committee had six amendments, on a five-clause bill, coming from the Conservatives. I just lay that out, and I guess I would ask....
has a bill as well, Bill , and he has taken the position in his bill that the parole board, rather than the warden, be responsible for all temporary absences. He's taken responsibility from the warden, in that bill, and passed it over to the parole board, which means more work for the parole board. Your bill is going somewhat the other way in terms of, I think, trying to lessen the workload of the parole board.
Is there any contradiction between the two? Was there any discussion within your caucus to determine if there's a conflict here?
Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill , an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I would like to begin by providing you with a brief overview of our office's mandate. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims, by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals, by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact victims of crime.
The office helps victims in two main ways, individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.
I would like to begin today by thanking Mr. Sweet for his work on this bill and for his efforts to recognize the valuable role that victims of crime have to play in the Canadian criminal justice system.
As mentioned, my mandate is to assist victims of crime in Canada. During my previous and current term as ombudsman, I have had the privilege of hearing from hundreds of victims across this country. I have found that victims are most concerned about their treatment, both within the criminal justice system and beyond. More specifically, I have found that, while the needs and concerns of victims are unique and do vary, on the whole victims want to be informed, considered, protected, and supported. It is clear to me that the intention of Bill is to further consider and include victims of crime in our criminal justice system. I fully support these aspects of the bill.
I think this bill puts forward some valuable changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would significantly enhance victims' treatment and consideration in the process. Many of these changes are, in fact, in line with recommendations that our office has made in the past. That being said, I think there are some minor modifications that would further strengthen the bill, and I would like to share these with the committee today.
Bill aims to address the lack of information victims receive by providing them with more information about the offender who harmed them. This is done in part through the bill's proposal to shift the onus on the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, from providing the information to victims on a discretionary basis, to ensuring that victims shall receive it. I strongly support this amendment; however I would suggest a modification.
As written, the bill suggests that only certain items currently considered discretionary become mandatory. I would suggest, as a further modification, that all of the information currently listed as discretionary be given to victims automatically, unless there is a relevant safety or security reason not to. If the principle of the bill is to provide victims with greater access to information, then I see no reason not to include all of these items.
Additionally, the proposed list of information to be provided to a victim includes information relating to the offender's correctional plan. We have often heard from victims who wish to know more about the offender's progress towards rehabilitation. Through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill in 2012, some information about the offender's program participation and serious disciplinary offences report, or the PPDO, was made available to the victim at the discretion of Correctional Service Canada, or CSC.
However, the PPDO provides very little information for victims outside of the names of the programs offenders may be taking, their status—for example, whether they are complete or ongoing—and blanket descriptions of the programs' overall goals. The PPDO does not provide information relating to the offender's risk, progress, and overall rehabilitation. This is the information that victims are most interested in obtaining.
The correctional plan, on the other hand, provides much more comprehensive information that would be more meaningful for victims in understanding the risks an offender may pose, how those risks are being addressed, and what progress, if any, he or she is making toward rehabilitation. Given this, I fully support Bill in its proposal to provide victims with more information relating to the offender's correctional plan.
As an additional note, many victims have expressed the desire to be informed of the commission of any new criminal code offences by the offender while under the supervision of CSC. Therefore, I would recommend that Bill be amended to include this information.
Finally, as a further modification to this area of the bill, there is an important technical oversight that could nullify the proposed benefits of the bill, once passed.
The bill proposes to expand the type of information provided to victims. It includes an amendment to section 142 of the CCRA, authorizing the parole board to provide information related to the offender's correctional plan. The correctional plan is a document under the control of CSC and is used to manage offenders over the course of their sentences. Accordingly, our office recommends that CSC rather than PBC be authorized to provide this information, through an amendment to section 26 of the CCRA rather than only section 142.
Further, the same pertains to notifications to victims related to the date and destination of certain absences and releases, as well as whether the offender will be in the vicinity of the victim while travelling to the release destination. This is all information that is currently provided to victims by the Correctional Service Canada under section 26 of the CCRA, which is not provided for in the bill. In other words, I recommend that the bill be amended to mirror the proposed amendments to section 142 of the CCRA in section 26 as well.
While ensuring that victims are properly informed is essential, it is equally important to create opportunities for victims to participate in the process and to create an environment to encourage that participation. This means providing choices and options for how victims can choose to participate in the criminal justice system without feeling intimidated or fearful, and without causing significant disruption to their lives and finances.
One example of this is the parole hearing. Parole hearings can be extremely important to some victims, given that it is often the first opportunity since sentencing for the victims to learn more about the progress, if any, that an offender has made towards rehabilitation. While some victims will find it important and even necessary to face the offender in person, others may find this idea intimidating or generally undesirable.
In the current system, attending or observing the parole hearing in real time is the only way that victims can attain the most complete information about the offenders who have harmed them and the progress the offenders may have made. For those victims who are fearful of encountering their offenders, for any number of reasons, including fear of retaliation, there is a distinct lack of options for observing a parole hearing. Only in exceptional circumstances can victims request that they attend the hearing via video-conferencing technology or closed-circuit television. Attending a hearing by secure webcast or audio feed is not an option.
Bill aims to address this gap, by proposing that in cases where a victim or a member of his or her family has been denied the ability to attend a hearing, the board shall provide for the victim or family member to follow the hearing by teleconference or by a one-way, closed-circuit video feed.
I would recommend two modifications to this. I recommend that the wording be amended so that it doesn't merely permit victims to follow the hearing but allows them to participate by reading their prepared victim statements, and that the option for a victim to observe and/or participate in a parole hearing via teleconference, one-way circuit video feed, video conferencing, or other technology, be extended to all victims, regardless of whether they have been denied attendance. We must keep in mind that for some victims it is work commitments, child care, caring for elderly parents or family members, financial restraints, or their own emotional anxiety about being within close proximity to the offender that may prohibit them from attending a hearing.
While the proposals in Bill are well intentioned to provide victims with greater access to the hearings, they neglect to take into account the fact that for many victims attending a parole hearing is not always an option, regardless of whether their attendance has been approved.
The lack of options for attending a parole hearing wouldn't be as problematic if a victim who did not attend a hearing had choices and options for reviewing the proceedings at a later date. However, the reality is that there are no alternatives for victims in these cases. There are no transcripts provided, and victims cannot access an audio recording, even when it exists. The only further material available to a victim who is not able to attend a hearing in person is a copy of the decision registry, which outlines the decision taken and main supporting reasons. It is in no way a full depiction of the information that is provided during the parole hearing.
Bill recognizes this need and attempts to address it by providing that if a transcript of the hearing has been made, on written request, a copy of it shall be provided by the parole board free of charge to the victim, a member of the victim's family, or the offender. Unfortunately, while this clause has the victims' needs in mind, our office understands that it is not currently the practice for transcripts to be made. Instead, audio recordings are kept as records of the parole hearing proceedings. As such, this legislative change would not result in further access for victims to the proceedings of any given parole hearing.
Previously our office has recommended that victims be granted access to listen in, not keep, audio recordings of the parole hearings, and that there be potential funding support, as necessary, to travel to the locations at which these recordings are stored.
As such I would recommend that the wording of the bill be amended to state that victims, members of the victim's family, and the offender have access to, at no charge, any recordings, be they audio, audio-visual, or otherwise, of the parole hearings.
In addition to increasing the information victims receive and their role in the system, Bill proposes to increase the time between parole hearings for violent offenders who are denied parole or who have parole cancelled or terminated.
In 2010 our office released a report entitled “Toward a Greater Respect for Victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act”, which recommended that the time between hearings be extended to five years for those serving life and indefinite sentences if an offender's request for conditional release is denied.
:
I too have had the opportunity to attend parole hearings, obviously, and have spoken with victims. I think Mr. Sweet spoke very eloquently to some of the experiences that he has had. I can reflect on some similar experiences. I would go further to say that we often talk about the day of the hearing and the emotion and all that's attached to it.
When you speak to families and family members who do feel that obligation to attend because they're representing a person who can't be there, they'll talk not just about the day of the hearing but about the months in advance, the year in advance. Are they going to apply for parole? Is the hearing going to actually take place? Is it going to be cancelled? Do I need to amend my victim impact statement? It's not just the day of the hearing. Then, of course, once the hearing takes place, it's the “after” of that as well. This is a huge toll that takes place.
Of course, one of the things that this bill is trying to address is—if I were to say it and use those four words—that victims are looking to be informed, considered, protected, and supported, so those are a lot of the pieces of this.
Number one, victims need information. They need information on the offender who harmed them—and a lot of the pieces are here—and they need to know if the offender, while in the institution, is taking proper steps toward rehabilitation, not just that he was taking a course and that it was completed but was he engaged in that?
Also, what are the risks that have been associated with this offender? Are the responses toward rehabilitation appropriate? Conversely, if in fact they're not, the victims may want to take extra steps when the offenders get back into the community. When they're released back into the community, be it on a pass or be it on parole, they want to know and need to know what conditions are attached to that. If there's a condition that says the offender is not to communicate with the victim or their family, they need to know that. If there is a geographic specification, they need to know that. It really comes down to their right to be informed so that they have the information they need to feel safe.
When this talks about, for example, the parole board considering a victim's safety in their decision-making and looking at that, this is something we hear from victims—how do I know those board members have considered my safety when they are making that decision around release? I think a lot of the things that this bill is bringing forward....
If we were to look at the specific amendments, for example, we would see that when we talk about the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 142 gives direction to the Parole Board of Canada, and section 26 gives that authority to Correctional Service Canada. You have those two sections over two federal agencies that both are involved with the offender, both on the management side and in the correctional plan, as well as the conditional release issues.
What I'm seeing is that there are some things, for example, such as a work release, and it's a decision of the warden, through Correctional Service Canada, to issue one of those. We should really have reflected in section 146 and section 26 that the governing authorities should have the ability, because they can only give the victim what the legislation says they can. When you look at something like a correctional plan.... As I said in my earlier testimony, I've listened to victims who heard for the first time at the parole board hearing about how or whether an offender has been returned, which might be 15 or 20 years down the road....
What they're saying is that Correctional Service Canada has that correctional plan early on, so if they have the authority to give that information to the victims earlier in the process, they can assess those risk issues and whether the offenders are engaged towards their rehabilitation. It would make sense in these modifications we're recommending, in that sections 26 and 142 grant both of those authorities the mirror ability to give that information to victims of crime.