An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with regard to the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole. It also amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Dec. 14, 2010 Passed That Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
Dec. 14, 2010 Failed That Bill S-6, in Clause 7, be amended (a) by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following: “3(1), within 90 days after the end of two years” (b) by replacing line 19 on page 6 with the following: “amended by subsection 3(1), within 90 days”
Dec. 14, 2010 Failed That Bill S-6, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting the following after line 28 on page 3: “(2.7) The 90-day time limits for the making of any application referred to in subsections (2.1) to (2.5) may be extended by the appropriate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, to a maximum of 180 days if the person, due to circumstances beyond their control, is unable to make an application within the 90-day time limit. (2.7) If a person convicted of murder does not make an application under subsection (1) within the maximum time period allowed by this section, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, or his or her designate, shall immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse or common-law partner of the victim that the convicted person did not make an application. If it is not possible to notify one of the aforementioned relatives, then the notification shall be given to another relative of the victim. The notification shall specify the next date on which the convicted person will be eligible to make an application under subsection (1).”
Dec. 14, 2010 Failed That Bill S-6 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows: “1. This Act may be cited as the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act.”

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4 p.m.
See context

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that prior to coming here I was part of the labour movement in Hamilton. In Ontario we have the Ontario public service unions and some of those unions are for prison guards. On more than one occasion we have had discussions with those particular people in regard to workplace safety. They told us that we should not to take away the faint hope clause because there was nothing between them and a prisoner, and a prisoner has no hope, there would be no reason in the world for that individual not to murder a prison guard.

We have great empathy for the families of victims and what they suffer through, but on the other side of this case, we do not want further victims in the families of those prison guards.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4 p.m.
See context

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, prison guards are the closest to the situation. Since they deal with inmates on a personal basis day in and day out, week after week, month after month, year after year, we do need to pay some attention to their observations. I know they support keeping the faint hope clause but even they too may be willing to have the concept tweaked and changed a bit. Even they would not write it off and say that absolutely no changes. If the changes are reasonable, they may go along with them.

Many organizations have pointed out that this is a worthwhile program. Even if we plumbed it down, I think a lot of government members would support it, but they are being whipped by their management. They do not have an independent idea among all 143 of them over there because--

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I can take one more brief question or comment. The hon. member for Nanaimo--Alberni.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4 p.m.
See context

Conservative

James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member quoted the member for Windsor—Tecumseh who stated earlier in the debate that families of victims should perhaps not be notified when a murderer applies for early parole, say after 15 years, like the families of the victims of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo for example.

I wonder if the member supports the position that families of victims should not be notified when an inmate applies for early parole under the existing system.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4 p.m.
See context

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should re-read the speech of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I heard him definitely say that we should go further and maybe even compensate victims. If a victim or family member has to go to a hearing and that hearing is adjourned or cancelled, those individuals should be compensated for their costs.

The member for Nanaimo—Alberni is totally wrong in what he is representing because the member for Windsor—Tecumseh did talk about the rights of victims.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Question.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Yea.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Some hon. members

Nay.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Accordingly the vote stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.