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.
4:45 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If both amendments are passed, the bill would have to be reprinted and it would have to be sorted out. So this would be subsection (2.8), and it would follow in the proper spot.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Typically, it follows as a matter of course that the paragraph numbers are adjusted.
Mr. Comartin.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I want to make a comment when we get to proposed subsection (2.4) in amendment 3, the government bill.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Clause 3, but then proposed subsection (2.4).
Have we skipped over that? If we have, I want to make a comment about that.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We'll deal first with Liberal amendment 3, then there'll be debate on the amended clause when you can make your comments, and then we'll go from there.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right?
So dealing with Liberal amendment 3, any further discussion?
Mr. Lee.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
It's kind of a question. I certainly intend to support the motion, but upon reading it, I'm assuming that within this amended subsection there's ample ability of the chief justice or designate to access the kind of information necessary to locate a victim described here. I'm assuming they would find the means to do it.
And second, I'm assuming that in the case of a 25-year parole ineligibility period there would be two notifications: one following the 15-year window and one following the 20-year window. Then after 25 years, when an inmate could apply for parole any time, there wouldn't be an actual “faint hope” application. It would just be a parole application after 25 years. Is that a fair assessment of the impact of this?
4:45 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If I could begin with your first question—with respect to the obligations that this proposes on the chief justice—I appreciate the intention behind this provision to give victims notice, but I do not think this information would be in the possession of the chief justice of the province where the offence took place. In fact, what occurs now is that victims register with Correctional Service of Canada after the offender has been convicted, so they will have notice of all the information they're entitled to and CSC will have their contact information. Perhaps they want it to go via somebody else or to be sent to a box number or whatever or by e-mail. All that information is kept in their registry. It's not in the hands of the chief justice.
I wouldn't want to suggest that the Correctional Service of Canada would have an ability to automatically advise the chief justice of the province in which that offence was committed that the 15-year mark is coming up. So perhaps this could be achieved another way. I think it is achieved to some extent now through the notification that CSC provides to registered victims. Without having an opportunity to inquire of our colleagues at CSC and of associations of chief judges as to whether this is possible, it may be problematic to put such obligations on them. That's with respect to the first part of the question.
In terms of when this notice would be provided—assuming there is eligibility at the 15-year mark—any notification would have to be provided to the victims before the 15-year mark, although from some of our discussions with victims over many years, they say that date is etched in their memory. They are made aware of 15 years, and it approaches them more quickly than they'd like it to. But it would be done at the 15-year mark, and then again if the next application was five years later.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Are you saying that CSC would notify a registered victim of the 15-year mark in any event, and if this were passed there'd be a second notification that would come from the chief justice saying that the offender had passed on the opportunity to make an application after the maximum time has expired?
4:45 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I'm saying is that currently those victims who register receive from the Correctional Service early on in the process some information about the management of the offender's sentence. Then if they are registered they get information about upcoming possible release provisions. Those who don't register would perhaps miss that information. But the point I'm trying to make is that I cannot say with any confidence that a chief judge of the province would have that information available to them in order to fulfill this obligation.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I just want to take issue with one fact.
Ms. Kane is correct in terms of the information that's given out with regard to the situation in which the prisoner—the convicted murderer—is making the application. But there is no information given out at this point if the person signals to the corrections people that he or she is not going to be applying. That's what Ms. Jennings' amendment is doing.
I wonder if she would entertain an amendment to take the authority away from the chief justice, to remove that part of the section and simply direct that Mr. Head, the Commissioner of Corrections Canada, be mandated to give that reporting. Because they're already doing it if the application is made. If the application is not made, they're not doing it.
Ms. Jennings is signalling that she would agree with that amendment, Mr. Chairman.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Is that a friendly amendment? Can we do that by consent? All right. We'll do that by consent then.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We need the exact wording of that. It's going to replace “Chief Justice in the province in which the conviction took place”--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, “or his or her designate”. That would be removed and it would say “the Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada or his or her designate shall immediately notify”.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'd like to speak to the amendment.
I don't know if members recall, but Mr. Head indicated that Corrections Canada was in fact reviewing their policy with regard to the level of communication they had with victims and families of victims, more extended than the immediate ones as defined here. They are looking at that.
It's quite clear that it's part of an overall review, but I think it behoves us to deal with it. Again, this is one of the methodologies that we can put into place, as opposed to what the government claims throughout the rest of the bill, that in fact will relieve some of the stress of the family members. Knowledge is a great assistance in alleviating that stress. So this would go a long way, especially when you look at the numbers where you've had almost 84% of all of the first-degree murder convictions never applying. It would go a long way to say to the victims that they don't have to worry about this, he or she didn't apply, and that gets that part of it off your back.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on LIB-3, as amended, with that friendly amendment?
(Amendment as amended agreed to yeas, 6; nays, 5)
