Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We will now deal with clause 3 as amended.

Mr. Comartin, I believe you had some comments to make.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes, they're with regard to proposed subsection 745.6(2.4). I don't know whether the government appreciates this, but given the pattern that we saw from all of the solid evidence we got, there is going to be an unintended consequence here of earlier applications than the existing pattern shows.

If you look at the statistics for the people who were released and the length of time it took to occur, and particularly if you recall the evidence of Mr. Sauvé concerning how long it took—he was one of the early applicants, that is, shortly after the 15 years—it took him about two years.

If you look at that pattern, what's quite clear is that the inmate, the convicted murderer, quite clearly at somewhere close to the 20-year mark—in the 18th or 19th year—is in the period of time when they consider applying. But many of them in fact do not apply until the 23rd year. That's the point at which the vast majority of them are.

Just do the math: the average stay is 25 years, and it takes about two years before they get out—that's what it was in 2009. It meant that the average person incarcerated for first-degree murder in this country did not make the application until the 23rd year.

The effect of putting in that you only can apply once—in effect, that you can only apply once at the five-year mark after the 15 years—is that you're going to get many more people applying earlier: they're going to say that because they're getting up to the 19th year they're going to do it now; otherwise they have to wait until the 25th year. We're going to see, I suggest strongly, and all of the evidence points this way, a great many more applications not at 23 years but at 20 years. Presumably, the vast majority of those who apply will, as now, be treated the same way: a certain percentage will be rejected at that point, but the majority of those who apply will in fact get out somewhat earlier than they would have but for this subsection.

It's because of the kind of approach taken by the government when they don't look at the facts and at the actual evidence in front of us that we end up with this unintended consequence. That's certainly not the consequence they want; they want people held for the full 25 years. This is what's going to happen; it's really inevitable that, rather than as in 2009, when the average person got out at 25 years, we'll see it go down to 22 or 23 years as an average.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll go on to clause 6.

Are you open to applying the vote on clause 5 to clause 6, in the interests of time?

No? All right, we'll call the question.

(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 7—Existing applications)

Moving on to clause 7, we have two Liberal amendments. We'll do Liberal amendment number 4 first.

Ms. Jennings, do you want to present it?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

This is just to bring the rest of the bill into conformity. It was based on hopes that there would be sufficient support in this committee to extend the 90-day deadline to a possible maximum of 180 days. Given that the amendment was in fact adopted by the majority of the committee, this follows logically in clause 7 as it now stands. As clause 6 talks about the 90-day deadline, this simply corrects it to the 180-day deadline, as does the Liberal amendment number 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, since they both have the same effect, could we deal with them by one vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I think the request was that we deal with them as separate votes. They are separate amendments, so let's deal with them separately in the interest of consistency.

We have Liberal amendment number 4. Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

We'll move on to Liberal amendment number 5, which, quite rightly, has the same effect.

Is there any discussion on it?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I think it speaks for itself, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

I'll call the question on Liberal amendment number 5 to clause 7.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move to clause 1, the short title. There is an amendment submitted, which is LIB-1. I have a ruling to make on it.

The amendment seeks to make an amendment to the short title. The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 771: “The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment”.

In the opinion of the chair, no amendment has been made to the bill that would necessitate a change to the short title, and the proposed amendment is therefore inadmissible. That ruling is consistent with previous rulings I've made.

So that particular amendment is out of order. That means we move to a vote on clause 1. Shall the short title carry?

This is a recorded vote.

(Clause 1 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

This means the bill is left without a short title.

We'll move to the title itself. Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(Bill S-6 as amended carried: yeas 8; nays 3)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Surely we can agree on something here.

Do you want to do it on division?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You want a recorded vote. Okay.

(Question agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3).

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you all for that discussion.

Just before we adjourn, I note that at our next meeting we're dealing with Bill C-21. The clerk has requested that, if at all possible, you have your amendments to Bill C-21 to her by noon tomorrow so that we can review them and hopefully get them to our counsel as well.

Mr. Rathgeber.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just curious to know whether Mr. Lemay and Mr. Comartin wanted a recorded vote as to whether we should adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're adjourned.