Justice Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

And they're serving a life sentence, obviously. So if their early release is revoked, when, if ever, can an individual apply again? Can an individual who has their early release revoked pursuant to the mechanics that Mr. Head just described--they're a lifer...? Are they precluded from ever applying again?

[Marie-France Pelletier]

No. They can reapply for another form of release at a later date. Typically, they would have to wait two years, but there can be variances.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

They're still serving a life sentence.

[Marie-France Pelletier]

Yes, that's right.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

We have individuals here—one was convicted of robbery and another was convicted of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of assault and use of force. Presumably they were sentenced for those subsequent offences. But they're still serving a life sentence, the original sentence for which they applied for early release. Are they eligible to apply again for “faint hope” after they've served for offences committed while out on early release?

[Marie-France Pelletier]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the technical answer to that question.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Nor am I.

[Marie-France Pelletier]

What I would do is undertake to give you a proper answer, because I wouldn't want to mislead you on that very technical point.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Trudeau, you testified—and I hope I heard you correctly—that the Quebec bar does not support this legislation because it does not believe it does anything to enhance the rights of victims. Did I understand that correctly?

[Gilles Trudeau]

Yes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You also said you believe that the onus to victims is discharged when the trial judge in his sentencing explains to the court in open court that it is a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years. Did I understand that correctly?

[Gilles Trudeau]

What I referred to was the requirements of the Criminal Code as set out in section 745.01, that the judge shall... I can read it for you, if you don't know what it says.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I know what it says, and we're short of time, but that was your testimony—that the discharge is the court's obligation to victims when that section 745 is read.

[Gilles Trudeau]

I understand that the purpose of your bill is to make sentences harsher because you are looking for some equivalency between time served and the sentence imposed. It is also intended to take into account the ambiguity that could result from this in victims' minds, that the person who has been convicted may be released. The Minister testified to that effect. But it seems to us that the requirements of the Criminal Code mean that at the time of sentencing, the judge provides all the information. We can't say that the public and the victims are deprived of information. They know the individual is being sentenced to imprisonment for life, and there are certain conditions that mean the individual will be entitled to make an application to a jury for permission to be granted early parole. That is what I am saying.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Has the Quebec bar association consulted with any victims, or any victims' groups, or any victims' advocates in forming this conclusion that this bill does not enhance the rights of victims, or is this your opinion?

[Gilles Trudeau]

The work done by the committee is based on the opinions of its members and is shared with the Bâtonnier. The Bâtonnier and the Barreau du Québec recognize the importance of what must be considered in terms of the victims. The Barreau du Québec does not need to consult more victims, concerning legislation that is working fine, than the Minister of Justice himself is capable of naming, of victims he has consulted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We're out of time, unfortunately.

We're going to go to Mr. Lee.

I'm going to suggest we do four minutes apiece so that we get at least two more questions in.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It's a good suggestion.

I have a question for Mr. Head, I think. No, it's actually for Ms. Pelletier. You both described—or I think it was Mr. Head—this 12-month workup to a possible application. Because this bill removes the faint hope procedure for everybody 15 years from now, we're only dealing with this transition period for those who would still be entitled over the next 15 years to make this application.

Does that mean, because of the strict timelines placed by this legislation on the faint hope clause applications, that when you start the one-year workup, you would in all cases effectively have 15 months to get the application in? You'd have the 12-month leave time and then the clock would run on the 90-day period imposed by the legislation.

Have I got it right that for everybody who's going to make a faint hope clause application, they would have a reminder from CSC about one year prior to the trigger date and then have the 90 days remaining to make an application?

Have I got that right?

[Don Head]

In theory that sounds right, yes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

No, I have to be right in practice, not just theory. That's why I'm asking you.

Is it possible that as soon as this bill is implemented you're going to have some people who may not be ready? In other words, they may not have started 12 months earlier but may have waited around a little bit, not realizing that there's going to be a deadline. Then, my gosh, they only have six months, and it takes four months to hear back from some guy with a photocopier on the other side of the country.

[Don Head]

On that you're absolutely right.

The point at which this comes into effect is such that if somebody had indicated to us nine months ago that they weren't going to apply and then all of a sudden, because this has come into effect, they have changed their mind, our window is going to be much, much smaller and we're going to have to work a lot harder—and the offender is going to have to work harder as well in terms of initiating the process.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So there might be a practical concern for some inmates in this situation?

[Don Head]

That's possible, yes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Which might create a legal concern under the charter or in some....

Okay. I'll leave it at that because we can't solve that here now.

My second question is the following—and I'm going to direct this to Monsieur Trudeau—but first I have to ask you to think in English, because I'm going to ask you about the English version of the bill.

In the French version, clause 1, the short title is fine. I read it and I seem to understand it en français. But I look at the English version and it has this term “serious time”.

Are you a lawyer?

[Gilles Trudeau]

Yes.