Monday, March 12, 2001

CANADA VOLUME 137 S NUMBER 026 S 1st SESSION S 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, March 12, 2001 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1485 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, March 12, 2001 The House met at 11 a.m. backbenchers we are competing against each other for a chance to bring our own interest to law. Perhaps the next time my issue will _______________ be more successful. Perhaps even some day I may have the opportunity to sit on that committee and be forced to decide among Prayers many competing interests and issues. _______________ All I can say is that it is most unfortunate that Bill C-233 is not a votable bill. It would dramatically lessen some of the emotional damages inflicted on individuals who have already been victimized PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS by crime. Our justice process should not further victimize these individuals. I will attempt to explain the problem presented by the D (1100) current process and how I am suggesting that it be alleviated. [English] As we all know, the majority of incarcerated criminal offenders CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT will at some time have served their sentences and be released back into the community. At some point during their sentences they are Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) permitted to apply for parole. If successful, they are released back moved that Bill C-233, an act to amend the Corrections and into the community under many forms of supervision. As a society Conditional Release Act (withdrawal of applications for full parole we need to ensure this gradual reintroduction and reclamation to by offenders serving two or more years), be read the second time our streets is successfully accomplished without threat to law-abid- and referred to a committee. ing citizens. He said: Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour to have this opportunity to debate a private member’s initiative in this place. My proposal only deals with one minor aspect of this process. Once the offender applies for consideration for parole, a number of D (1105 ) other people are affected. Correctional personnel may be inter- viewed to provide impressions and reflections on the character of Bill C-233 is neither extensive nor is it complicated. It is another the offender and whether that offender has made steps towards attempt to bring balance to our justice system. Having been rehabilitation and contrition. Parole personnel will prepare a file on intimately involved with various aspects of our justice system over the history of that offender in order to assist the hearing process to the past number of years, I can fully appreciate its complexities, its ensure adequate information is available to aid and determine the size, its drain on resources and the necessity to balance the interests suitability for release. Victims may be interested in presenting their of the state, the offender and the victim. Bill C-233 is merely an fears or opinions respecting the release of someone who may still attempt to readjust one aspect of what I perceive to be an injustice present a danger of committing additional criminal activity. in the process. Before I start to get into substantive issues about my proposed The problem is that there is nothing to stop offenders from legislation, I would first like to advise listeners that the Standing withdrawing their applications for parole at any time during that Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has decided to make process. Some offenders make application only to withdraw at the the bill not votable. I could question the rationale for that decision last moment before the parole board hearing actually takes place. and I could criticize the government members who comprise the When this form of abuse occurs, time and money is expended to majority of that committee, but I will not. I was not privy to their obtain and prepare the corrections aspect for these hearings. Some contemplations toward deciding what bills will be deemed votable people might say the taxpayer is already paying the correctional and what bills will be deemed not votable. I fully understand that as employees so there is really not additional cost involved. In some 1486 COMMONS DEBATES March 12, 2001 Private Members’ Business cases that may be so, but we are all probably aware that Canada who possesses almost complete control over the parole process. does not have an overabundance of resources within the corrections That is not right. department. As it has often been said, quite derogatorily, ‘‘the inmates are We can also understand that because our corrections personnel running the asylum’’. This is not a debate about the right to parole. are stretched so thinly additional demands for their attention often I am speaking only about improving our present system. If we are necessitates the working of overtime. It may also require some to permit an offender to apply for parole there must be some travel as corrections personnel move from one location to another controls and consequences to that offender so that everyone else is for many reasons. not disadvantaged. Offenders who play ‘‘silly-bugger’’ with the process affect the stress and workload of corrections and parole board personnel as well as the lives of their victims. The whole Similarly, parole board members have to prepare themselves to parole process is needlessly skewed by legislation as an attempt to learn the file for each specific offender applying for parole. They make a minor adjustment to bring that process into balance. must be able to adequately question witnesses who provide infor- Reforming a process is not rocket science. All I am suggesting is mation to form the basis of a decision on whether or not to release that there be some form of a consequence to the offender who an offender back into the community. This costs time and money. More significant, we all know how important it is to have these initiates the process and then stops it without an acceptable reason. parole boards do their job properly and completely. It does not help when time and effort is expended on a specific hearing, only to My amendment would permit withdrawal for ‘‘illness, mental or have it wasted when the offender subsequently withdraws that physical capacity’’ and that is for causes beyond the offender’s application. The time and effort wasted could have been better control. All we are doing is holding the offender to account. spent on other applications. Withdrawal without proper excuse would have a consequence. Reapplication would not be permitted for two years. When we are dealing with scarce resources it does not help when the process permits waste to occur. We cannot afford the waste. The Some critics have looked at this legislation with a typical parole board must expend limited resources on the cases that are jaundiced view just because a member of the Canadian Alliance is going to come to decision. We must ensure that the proper decision proposing it. They have challenged the bill over who will decide to release or detain is made on the basis of all available information, otherwise offenders may be released back into our communi- whether there is a valid excuse for the withdrawal of the applica- ties when they should not and others may be held in custody when tion. The legislation leaves that determination to the parole board. they should be released. They are the experts on parole hearings. They can decide this simply aspect. The offender of course will have the power to appeal any decision of the board. The victim is another important participant in the process. The victim has the right to provide input into the granting of parole. Victims often have to travel great distances to attend hearings The legislation is not a partisan attack on the parole process. It is which are nearly always held in the institution in which the merely an attempt to bring some common sense to a problem. We offender is incarcerated. The institution may be miles from the have offenders who apply for parole, withdraw the application home of the victim. anywhere down the timeline up to the last moment without having to give a reason, and then reapply almost immediately without any consequence. D (1110 ) I will move to some real examples of what has been occurring Frequently it may be in another province. I have a very personal under the current provisions of this process. example. Members of my family wishing to attend such a hearing for my son’s killer would have had to travel from the west coast to Quebec. When victims expend the time, money and effort to attend Donald Alexander Hay kidnapped, raped and tortured 12 year a hearing, only to have it cancelled at the last minute by the old Abby Drover and held her in an underground dungeon for six offender, I would suggest that the offender is revictimizing those months. In November 1997 he withdrew his parole application individuals once again, both financially and emotionally. The after a public outcry over his possible release. In March 1998 he offender can reapply almost immediately and the roller coaster reapplied. It does not take much to appreciate how much he has continues. been able to further emotionally traumatize Abby Drover and her family when this situation occurs every few months. There must be something to cause such a situation to be decided one way or the Hopefully I have sufficiently outlined the problem.

Load more