Evidence of meeting #37 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 apply.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I would have thought the parliamentary secretary would have given you a copy by now.
4:30 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We don't have a copy.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Can we take a short break so the officials can have a look at the amendment?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Could someone give copies of the amendments to our officials?
We'll suspend for one minute.
Okay, Ms. Kane, you've had a chance to review it.
4:34 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In response to Mr. Comartin's question, yes, it will apply to all of those persons. The extension of the time period would apply to anybody who's currently serving a sentence, or who has committed an offence but hasn't yet been charged, or who has been charged and hasn't yet been tried.
Then when they reach the 15-year mark, they would have 90 days, plus this extended period if they couldn't meet the 90-day period of time. I would assume there will be more awareness of those who are now caught in that particular scenario and the need to bring forward their application within that period.
4:34 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Just so that it's clear to us and we address Mr. Dechert's comments, the reality is that they're going to be faced with this.... Anybody, let's say, who is a few months from the 15 years is going to be faced with this 90-day or 180-day requirement if this bill goes through in the next six months. Is that fair to say?
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, I want to respond to Mr. Dechert's reasons for the Conservative members not supporting the Liberal amendment on extending the current deadline from the 90 days proposed in the Bill S-6 to a possible 180 days.
He said that it would delay this bill, that it would require the bill to go back to the Senate, and that the bill was timely and important and that this needed to be done.
I would ask the member, if this bill is so important and is such a priority for his government and cannot be sent back to the Senate for a couple of days, why did this government wait 99 days at first reading before a minister or parliamentary secretary stood in the House to move second reading and allow debate to begin on this bill in the House and ultimately for it to go to committee? The opposition did not delay this bill at second reading. After 99 days, once the government finally moved it at second reading, we only debated this bill in the House for two days. So I would say his first reason for not supporting this amendment is specious.
As for his second reason, that we heard testimony from the Correctional Service that they notify inmates a year before their fifteenth year comes up, he's correct. But we also heard testimony from witnesses who actually assist inmates in preparing their application forms, like Kim Pate, who said that in some cases—not a lot, but in a few cases—because of the complexity of the issue and of getting documents and having them translated, and getting responses from jurisdictions other than where the inmate is serving their sentence, she has been involved in cases where it's taken more than a year. It's taken in some cases two years to complete the file and to be able to submit an application. So the second reason not to support this is specious as well, as far as I'm concerned.
I would call on the government to rethink its position, given that its argument on the timeliness of the bill doesn't fly. They let it sit for 99 days at first reading in the House before moving second reading; and with the cooperation of the opposition parties, we saw to it that it only was debated at second reading for two days, before referring it to committee. I would say the government might want to rethink its position and think about supporting the Liberal amendment.
Thank you, Chair.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I wanted to agree with Mr. Dechert that it might be dangerous to send any bill back to the Senate these days, given the demise last week of the House bill that wasn't even debated before it was nuked by the Conservative majority in the other place.
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Harrumph.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
No.
Again, in debating this, for accuracy, I just want the record to indicate that Mr. Dechert described the one-year lead-up, the year-14 notice, as a kind of a limit of a year, but it really isn't. It's not a limitation period at all. It's a one-year notice to an inmate that he or she will have an opportunity to make a faint hope application to adjust the parole eligibility restriction, though 83% of inmates don't ever bother to make a faint hope application. It is a notice that they could begin to prepare an application if they wished. That's a fair statement.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
We're dealing with amendment L-2, so I'll call the question on the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We also have a second Liberal amendment. It's actually Liberal amendment number 3, but it's to the same clause.
Ms. Jennings, do you want to introduce that one?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes. This is the Liberal amendment that follows from the testimony that we heard from the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Sue O'Sullivan, to the effect that she would support notification to the families of victims when an offender does not exercise his or her right to apply for the faint hope clause. And we did hear that from other witnesses representing victims as well. Mr. Dechert, Mr. Norlock, and other members of the Conservative team here on this committee have said repeatedly that some families of victims live in a great deal of anxiety once the fifteenth year begins to approach, knowing there is this faint hope clause.
Based on that, we believe it would be reasonable to bring into play the requirement that when an inmate does not exercise his or her right to apply for early parole under the faint hope clause and the deadline has expired, the chief justice in the province where the conviction took place, or his or her designate, immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse, or common-law partner of the victim that the convicted person did not make an application. And if it's not possible to notify one of the aforementioned relatives, then the notification shall be given to another relative of the victim; and in addition, that the notification shall specify the next date on which the convicted person will be eligible to make an application.
The notification of the next date is precisely based on comments that we Liberals have heard from witnesses, but also from the Conservative members, when they've stressed the anxiety that families of victims have, not knowing if and when an inmate would apply for early release under the faint hope clause, as it now stands, because there is no deadline. Therefore, we are proposing this amendment. And we hope to have the support of the Conservatives, the Bloc, and the NDP on this.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chairman, if the amendment we are currently debating were to pass, a new subsection would be created. This would no longer be subsection (2.7) under section 3, but rather, subsection (2.8). I think that should be indicated and it should obviously be inserted after subsection (2.7).
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I did not hear what departmental officials said about this.
Is the Chair's conclusion correct?
4:40 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The numbers would be adjusted accordingly.