Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can guarantee you that this will take less than 10 minutes. I don't intend to overwhelm you with statistics, which you most certainly already have, and I will keep my comments brief.
First of all, on behalf of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec and its 60 member community organizations, I would like to thank you for your invitation to share our views on Bill S-6.
Established in 1962, our association now represents some 58 community organizations that work closely with the adult offender community in practically every region of Quebec, as well as two umbrella organizations. The community network that I represent is made up of 800 skilled employees and more than 500 volunteers actively involved in crime prevention and social rehabilitation of offenders.
Our organizations are recognized and accredited based on rigorous standards by the different user services. From an economic standpoint, their activities represent almost $50 million a year. Year after year, this network serves a total of approximately 35,000 individuals subject to judicial control, some of whom were sentenced to life in prison.
If you were to ask me to make one brief comment on Bill S-6, which will eliminate the faint hope clause, it could be summarized with the following question: why? Indeed, in terms of our experience with this clause since it was introduced in 1976, compared to the goals set at the time, it is clear that it has been a success. So, why change something if it's working? As the saying goes: If it's not broken, don't fix it.
As I said earlier, I do not intend to go over all these statistics that have already been provided to this Committee. I will simply say that they clearly show there has been no abuse, considering that, according to the figures that I have seen, only 180 cases have come before a judge and jury out of a possible 1,067, which represents 17%. Of that number, 33 were rejected, or barely 3% of total eligible cases. Finally, the vast majority of offenders released following judicial review continue to live as law-abiding citizens. And, even more importantly, there have been no cases of recidivism involving murder. So, why do this?
One of the interesting features that will be removed if judicial review is no longer available is the opportunity for community representatives—in other words, jury members—to comment on the potential rehabilitation of a member of that community. Naturally, the issue of victims' rights and concern for victims is a point often raised by the government in its own arguments and rationale for this. Yet it seems that the government is more interested in fuelling the clash between victims and offenders than it is in appeasing the two sides in order for healing to occur, if I can put it that way.
As regards the victims and their families needing and having the right to services and assistance throughout the legal process, everyone agrees with that, including our association. However, we should be questioning exactly how the elimination of the faint hope clause will in fact help victims or their families. How does keeping people in jail beyond a certain period, which has been considered acceptable since 1976, contribute in any way to appeasement of the two sides—offenders and victims and their families—and will it result in healing?
The experience of the ASRSQ's member community organizations, in terms of their experience with offenders affected by the faint hope clause, reflects in all respects the duly noted success associated with this clause.
The ASRSQ therefore sees no valid reason to eliminate it, and recommends that the Committee propose that Bill S-6 be withdrawn.
Thank you for listening and I am now available to take your questions.
