Speech (committee meeting)

{
    "time": "2012-05-31 16:00:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Michael Jackson",
        "fr": "M. Michael Jackson"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"2928627\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Nowhere in any of the reports that were the foundation for Bill C-10 or in any submissions to these committees by officials from the parole board was there any recommendation, not even a footnoted hint, that a further far-reaching amendment to the CCRA would be introduced. Yet what is now before you, just a few months after the passage of Bill C-10, buried deep in a 400-page budget bill, is a change to the correctional legal landscape that, in its impact on constitutional rights, eclipses anything passed in Bill C-10.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928628\" data-originallang=\"en\">The second reason flows from the first and relates to the constitutionality of the amendment to the CCRA contained in division 37, clause 527. This would abolish the right of an offender whose parole or statutory release has been suspended to an in-person hearing before the parole board to determine whether to cancel the suspension or revoke the parole. Henceforth, these parole decisions will be based on a file review only.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928629\" data-originallang=\"en\">Bill <a data-HoCid=\"5514128\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-38/\" title=\"An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-38</a>, in abolishing the right to an in-person hearing and providing for only file reviews, violates section 7 of the charter. In a consistent and hitherto unchallenged line of cases decided by both provincial superior and federal courts dating back to 1982, it has been held that section 7 of the charter gives a suspended offender the right to an in-person hearing when the issue of revocation is being determined. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928630\" data-originallang=\"en\">The violation of section 7 that the proposed amendment would cause has not and cannot be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on a constitutional right. The only reason given by the government for the legislative change is to save costs. As Federal Court of Appeal Justice Mark MacGuigan, himself a former Minister of Justice, stated in R. v. Howard, \u201cConvenience and justice are often not on speaking terms.\u201d </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928631\" data-originallang=\"en\">In my written brief, I have provided this committee with a more detailed understanding of the factual and legal context and consequences of parole suspension and revocation and the crucial importance of the in-person, post-suspension hearing. This will explain why the courts have concluded that this hearing is a fundamental principle of justice.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928632\" data-originallang=\"en\">The great majority of parole suspensions are not based on the parolee's reoffending for a serious crime of violence, or indeed for any crime, but for allegations of breach of a condition of parole. The alleged breach of conditions contained in a parole officer's report, which constitutes the primary file document upon which the parole board reviews these cases, is often based upon information contained in police reports. Without an in-person hearing, the reliability of this information cannot be properly tested.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928633\" data-originallang=\"en\">I have provided the committee with examples of actual cases that demonstrate the importance of the in-person hearing, and where without the right to such a hearing the offender's parole would almost certainly have been revoked unfairly and needlessly, in many cases resulting in many more years' imprisonment.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928634\" data-originallang=\"en\">The importance of the in-person hearing is not limited to ensuring fairness to the offender. The likelihood that the board will have before it accurate and complete information and relevant arguments needed to make decisions regarding the risk to public safety is considerably enhanced by the in-person hearing. Hearing the offender in person, therefore, is an essential element of the process. It permits fairness to the offender while making it possible for the board to accurately assess the risk to the public.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928635\" data-originallang=\"en\">The third and final reason, to my alarm, is that the amendment will disproportionately affect aboriginal offenders, who as a result of systemic discrimination have lower rates of conditional release and higher rates of revocation. In its recent decision in R. v. Ipeelee, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in R. v. Gladue that the courts must take into account the special circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The board has previously, to its great credit, responded to the challenge by introducing elder-assisted hearings. The hearing is held in accordance with aboriginal protocol, in a circle, and the board-appointed elder counsels the offender and provides advice to board members. The involvement of elders also provides a valuable opportunity to introduce traditional teachings and the positive involvement of aboriginal communities.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928636\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Bill <a data-HoCid=\"5514128\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-38/\" title=\"An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-38</a>, by abolishing post-suspension hearings, would extinguish the possibility of an elder-assisted hearing in the post-suspension context. In doing so, Parliament will be aggravating, not alleviating, the systemic discrimination referred to by the Supreme Court, and that discrimination has been referred to as a staggering injustice. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928637\" data-originallang=\"en\">I urge this committee to reject clause 527 of Bill <a data-HoCid=\"5514128\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-38/\" title=\"An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-38</a>.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"2928627\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Nulle part, dans aucun des rapports qui constituaient l'assise du projet de loi C-10 ou dans aucun m\u00e9moire pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 \u00e0 ces comit\u00e9s par des repr\u00e9sentants de la Commission des lib\u00e9rations conditionnelles ne figurait une recommandation, pas m\u00eame un indice en note de bas de page, selon laquelle une modification en profondeur de la LSCMLC serait introduite. Pourtant, ce que vous avez devant vous, quelques mois seulement apr\u00e8s l'adoption du projet de loi C-10, cach\u00e9 dans un projet de loi sur le budget de 400 pages, c'est un changement du paysage l\u00e9gislatif du syst\u00e8me correctionnel qui, compte tenu de ses r\u00e9percussions sur les droits constitutionnels, l'emporte sur toute disposition adopt\u00e9e dans le cadre du projet de loi C-10. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928628\" data-originallang=\"en\">La deuxi\u00e8me raison d\u00e9coule de la premi\u00e8re et tient \u00e0 la constitutionnalit\u00e9 de la modification de la LSCMLC pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 l'article 527 de la section 37. Cela \u00e9liminerait le droit d'un d\u00e9linquant dont la libert\u00e9 conditionnelle ou la libert\u00e9 d'office a \u00e9t\u00e9 suspendue \u00e0 se pr\u00e9senter en personne \u00e0 une audience devant la Commission pour d\u00e9terminer s'il y a lieu d'annuler la suspension ou de r\u00e9voquer la libert\u00e9 conditionnelle. Par cons\u00e9quent, ces d\u00e9cisions relatives \u00e0 la libert\u00e9 conditionnelle seront uniquement fond\u00e9es sur l'examen du dossier. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928629\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le projet de loi C-38, en abolissant le droit \u00e0 une audience en personne et en pr\u00e9voyant seulement l'examen <a data-HoCid=\"5514128\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-38/\" title=\"An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\"></a>du dossier, contrevient \u00e0 l'article 7 de la Charte. Selon toute une successions de cas constants et n'ayant pas \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9s jusqu'\u00e0 maintenant, les cours sup\u00e9rieurs provinciales et f\u00e9d\u00e9rales, depuis aussi loin que 1982, ont affirm\u00e9 que, en vertu de l'article 7 de la Charte, un d\u00e9linquant ayant fait l'objet d'une suspension a le droit \u00e0 une audience en personne lorsqu'on s'appr\u00eate \u00e0 trancher une question de r\u00e9vocation. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928630\" data-originallang=\"en\">On n'a pas su justifier et on ne saurait justifier la violation de l'article 7 que causerait la modification propos\u00e9e en invoquant la limite raisonnable \u00e0 un droit constitutionnel. Selon le gouvernement, le changement l\u00e9gislatif est uniquement motiv\u00e9 par l'\u00e9pargne de co\u00fbts. Comme l'a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 le juge Mark MacGuigan de la Cour d'appel f\u00e9d\u00e9rale \u2014 lui-m\u00eame ancien ministre de la Justice \u2014 dans l'affaire <em>R. c. Howard</em>, le caract\u00e8re opportun et la justice entrent souvent en conflit. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928631\" data-originallang=\"en\">Dans mon m\u00e9moire, j'ai pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 au comit\u00e9 une explication plus d\u00e9taill\u00e9e du contexte et des cons\u00e9quences factuels et juridiques de la suspension et de la r\u00e9vocation de la libert\u00e9 conditionnelle et de l'importance cruciale de l'audience en personne tenue apr\u00e8s la suspension. Cela permettra de comprendre pourquoi les cours ont conclu que cette audience est un principe fondamental de justice. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928632\" data-originallang=\"en\">La grande majorit\u00e9 des suspensions de la libert\u00e9 conditionnelle sont fond\u00e9es non pas sur la r\u00e9cidive du lib\u00e9r\u00e9 conditionnel pour avoir commis un crime violent grave \u2014 ou m\u00eame n'importe quel crime \u2014, mais sur une all\u00e9gation de violation d'une condition de lib\u00e9ration conditionnelle. La violation des conditions all\u00e9gu\u00e9e qui figure dans le rapport d'un agent de lib\u00e9ration conditionnelle, principal dossier \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re duquel la Commission des lib\u00e9rations conditionnelles examine ces cas, est souvent fond\u00e9e sur de l'information contenue dans les rapports de police. Sans audience en personne, on ne peut pas correctement v\u00e9rifier la fiabilit\u00e9 de cette information. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928633\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ai fourni au comit\u00e9 des exemples de cas r\u00e9els qui illustrent l'importance de l'audience en personne et le fait que, sans le droit \u00e0 une telle audience, la libert\u00e9 conditionnelle du d\u00e9linquant sera presque certainement r\u00e9voqu\u00e9e injustement et inutilement, ce qui, dans bien des cas, signifie encore de nombreuses ann\u00e9es d'emprisonnement. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928634\" data-originallang=\"en\">L'importance de l'audience en personne ne se limite pas \u00e0 la justice pour le d\u00e9linquant. Avec l'audience en personne, il est plus probable que la Commission dispose de renseignements exacts et exhaustifs et d'arguments pertinents n\u00e9cessaires pour qu'elle rende des d\u00e9cisions relatives au risque pour la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 publique. La comparution en personne du d\u00e9linquant, par cons\u00e9quent, est un \u00e9l\u00e9ment essentiel du processus. Cela assure la justice \u00e0 l'\u00e9gard du d\u00e9linquant tout en permettant \u00e0 la Commission de bien \u00e9valuer le risque pour le public. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928635\" data-originallang=\"en\">La troisi\u00e8me et derni\u00e8re raison \u2014 \u00e0 ma grande inqui\u00e9tude \u2014 tient au fait que la modification nuira disproportionnellement aux d\u00e9linquants autochtones, qui, \u00e0 cause d'une discrimination syst\u00e9mique, connaissent de plus faibles taux de mise en libert\u00e9 sous condition et des taux plus \u00e9lev\u00e9s de r\u00e9vocation. Dans sa r\u00e9cente d\u00e9cision dans <em>R. c. Ipeelee</em>, la Cour supr\u00eame a r\u00e9affirm\u00e9 sa d\u00e9cision dans <em>R. c. Gladue</em> selon laquelle les tribunaux doivent tenir compte des circonstances particuli\u00e8res des d\u00e9linquants autochtones. La Commission \u2014 tout \u00e0 son honneur \u2014 a d\u00e9j\u00e0 relev\u00e9 le d\u00e9fi en introduisant les audiences tenues avec l'aide d'un A\u00een\u00e9. L'audience est tenue conform\u00e9ment au protocole autochtone, dans un cercle, et l'A\u00een\u00e9 nomm\u00e9 par la Commission offre un counselling au d\u00e9linquant et donne des conseils aux commissaires. La participation des A\u00een\u00e9s pr\u00e9sente aussi une pr\u00e9cieuse occasion d'introduire des enseignements traditionnels et de profiter de la participation positive des collectivit\u00e9s autochtones. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928636\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le projet de loi C-38, en abolissant les audiences tenues apr\u00e8s la suspension, \u00e9liminerait la possibilit\u00e9 d'une audience tenue avec l'aide d'un A\u00een\u00e9 dans le contexte qui suit la suspension. Ce faisant, le Parlement aggraverait, plut\u00f4t qu'att\u00e9nuerait, la discrimination syst\u00e9mique \u00e9voqu\u00e9e par la Cour supr\u00eame, et cette discrimination a \u00e9t\u00e9 qualifi\u00e9e d'injustice criante. <a data-HoCid=\"5514128\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-38/\" title=\"An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\"></a></p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"2928637\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je demande instamment au comit\u00e9 de rejeter l'article 527 du projet de loi C-38. <a data-HoCid=\"5514128\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-38/\" title=\"An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\"></a></p>"
    },
    "url": "/committees/finance/41-1/67/michael-jackson-3/",
    "politician_url": null,
    "politician_membership_url": null,
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "7616052",
    "document_url": "/committees/finance/41-1/67/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Ffinance%2F41-1%2F67%2F"
    }
}