Evidence of meeting #35 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, my colleague's questions were so well put that I don't have any more. I can yield my speaking time to Ms. Jennings, if she wants to ask anything else. May I give her my five minutes? Take them, Ms. Jennings.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
I will conclude by simply stating, again in response to a statement made by Mr. Dechert to the effect that this government is only interested in truth in sentencing and they have no interest in the issue of rehabilitation of inmates, whether it be those convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or, I presume, any other criminal offence found under our Criminal Code.... In fact, if that is this government's interest, then they should attempt to amend the Criminal Code where it states that one of the principles of our criminal justice system is rehabilitation. It does not say that the rehabilitation principle does not apply to those who are convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or any other offence under our Criminal Code.
So I call on this government, if in fact it really is for truth in sentencing, to amend, make an attempt to rehaul the entire Criminal Code, and say that the only principle of the Canadian criminal justice system is retribution.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
An hon. member
We are.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Order, order.
We're going to move to Monsieur Petit, for five minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask Mr. Mandelcorn a question. Are you a lawyer?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
So you know that when a person is charged with first degree murder, in Quebec, they appear in the Superior Court of Quebec. As a lawyer, have you engaged in plea bargaining to have the charge reduced to second degree murder, to avoid a jury trial, because it costs less for the government? Is that something that has happened to you in your career?
5:15 p.m.
Regional Director, Criminal Lawyers' Association
It's plea negotiations, not plea bargaining, number one.
Number two, I don't think a crown would agree to drop a first-degree murder down to second-degree on the basis that it saves money. It is based on the strength of the crown's case and what would be supported in terms of a reasonable verdict, should it have gone all the way to trial.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Do you agree with me that this has happened to you during your career?
I am also a lawyer. In Quebec, these things happen. I imagine that your province is no different from mine. I'd like to know whether you are aware that when your client is convicted of second degree murder, their eligibility is different from the eligibility of an individual convicted of first degree murder. Do you agree?
5:20 p.m.
Regional Director, Criminal Lawyers' Association
It could be. Even on a second-degree murder conviction, the judge has the ability to impose life with eligibility for parole at the 25-year maximum. So in most cases I would agree with you, the parole ineligibility period is lessened, not necessarily by definition and certainly not by law. It could be as much as 25 years before he's eligible to apply.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I would like to ask Mr. McIsaac a question.
You know that we are the ones who created the position of victims' ombudsman; there wasn't one before that. I think you talked about that in your speech.
I would like to know whether your organization consulted associations of victims who told you that what the Conservatives are doing is right. Did you consult associations of victims or did you consult only representatives of the criminal side, in the prisons, who naturally would have told you the bill is no good? Did you consult victims?
November 16th, 2010 / 5:20 p.m.
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
Yes. The John Howard Society, in the provision of its services and programming, runs reconciliation activities that involve both victims of crime and the offenders. So it is not an area that we are unaware of. Contact with victims is an ongoing matter.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. McIsaac, you say you met with victims. Did they tell you they are happy that the individual who killed their child or their wife or their uncle will be released after 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 years? Is that what came out of your conversations with the victims?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Not at all.
Mr. Sauvé, I would like to ask you a question. Earlier, you talked about the hope this gave and that you benefited from, which is entirely to your credit. I would now like to ask you a slightly more direct question. After 15 or 16 or 17 years, a lot of people get out of prison. Personally, I call prison a coffin. But the victim, the person who is really in the coffin, what chance do they have after 15 years? They have nothing. What do you have to offer victims to help them?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
That's a journey that.... I can't speak on behalf of victims. That's a journey that they take.
I've appeared at conferences. I was at a workshop with a great number of victims. It was in Toronto. It was sponsored by the National Parole Board. Your colleague has brought up that victims and the public want to feel safe about who is in their community, and I disclosed at that meeting that I was convicted of first-degree murder.
At the end of the day, I drove one of the women home to her house; my wife and I walked the other woman to her car. They said after the whole day of workshops together, “I'm just not sure. I just want to make sure that I'm safe in the community.” That's what the faint hope clause and the judicial review process are about.
You're absolutely right that the public wants to know that they're going to be safe in the community. You're absolutely right. When somebody goes back into the community, meets, and testifies, and has their whole life explained and presented to the public and the jury, they decide whether that person should be considered for parole. That's what this legislation is about.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We're going to move back to Mr. Lee. You have a short question, I believe.
