Bill C-36 (Historical)

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with regard to the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's certainly a scenario.

I just want to raise this with members. Tentatively I had scheduled us to deal with clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 right after the witnesses and then move to Bill C-232.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, I understand.

If the motion before us fails, we just continue work on Bill C-36, whatever that may entail.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, wait, we will not stay here to fight about it all afternoon. I agree with you. We tried to reach the witnesses. Some of them are unable to come, and that is par for the course.

However, I don't want to be stuck in the situation where we would have to start on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. and finish Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. I don't want that. We can do it at a later date. On the 16th we will have clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36. I would like us to take the time to hear from our witnesses, study Bill C-232 as required, and at the following meeting, meaning on the 16th, do clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36.

What is the national emergency, where's the fire?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I do not agree. I cannot agree with that, because that means that we could be sleeping here on Wednesday evening.

What do you want to do? We will have to vote, because there are votes on Wednesday in the House of Commons.

I had understood that, on the day that we start clause-by-clause consideration, we won't stop until we finish. We could do some work on this. If you are telling us that we will start on Wednesday and we won't stop, this means that we will not be going to vote, because there are votes on Wednesday.

Then, I do not agree with the motion that Bill C-36 is much too important for us to rush through it. If there are any witnesses left, I don't want to rush anyone. I don't think there are many witnesses left, and we will take the time needed to ensure clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36, even if another meeting is needed.

How many witnesses are left, Mr. Chair, is it two or three?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, correct, that's what I would like to see from the motion. It says “that the meeting not adjourn until clause by clause consideration is complete”. After hearing witnesses on Bill C-36, we would then start and finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 by the end of the meeting on Wednesday.

If I hear what the chair is saying with regard to our schedule, it seems quite doable to me to finish Bill C-232 clause-by-clause, hear witnesses on Bill C-36, and then do clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 on Wednesday.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I 'd like to make sure I understand correctly. Perhaps the translation of the motion is not clear. I would like Mr. Moore to explain to me fully. If I understand correctly, we still have witnesses to hear regarding Bill C-36. Once we have heard from them, whether on Wednesday or at another time, we will begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36 and that consideration will have to be completed before the end of the meeting.

Have I understood correctly, because that is not what is set out in the motion.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Chair, to answer Mr. Murphy's question, no, my goal here is not to have us not hear any other witnesses on Bill C-36; it is just to finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-36. If there are witnesses we want to hear who are already scheduled, or others we can hear that day, ultimately I'd like to see us finish Bill C-36 after we've heard from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As there are no amendments, I expect we'll be considering that. There may be some amendments on Bill C-36, but it's reasonable to expect, if in fact those are the only two witnesses we have next meeting, that we'll be able to get all the clause-by-clause done on those two bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Let me tell you what is preliminarily scheduled for our next meeting. We have two more witnesses on Bill C-36, Allan Manson and the Correctional Service of Canada, which will provide us with some statistics. Then we were going to go to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 and Bill C-232. I don't expect that Bill C-232 will take much time. Is the government proposing any amendments to Bill C-232?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, thanks, Chair.

The motion is pretty easy to understand. We would complete clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 on Wednesday. You've mentioned Bill C-52. We have another bill before our committee and other work we'd like to get moving on. I think today's our third day of testimony on Bill C-36. That's why I would like to see us with a concrete plan to complete Bill C-36. The nature of my motion would be to give us a definitive date on which we're going to wrap up Bill C-36, and that date, in my view, should be Wednesday.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That depends. Should we not first finish studying Bill C-36?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There are two other items. We're moving on to a review of Bill C-52. It's tentatively scheduled for November 16, which is the first meeting after the break. I want to make sure everybody knows we need a list of witnesses on Bill C-52. You have your formal notice. Please submit to us the list of witnesses you'd like to hear on Bill C-52, which is the white collar crime legislation.

Since we'll be moving to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 some time in the very near future, depending on the outcome of the motion, we'd like to have your amendments as soon as possible.

It's the same thing for Bill C-232. We want to move toward clause-by-clause on that as well, so if you have amendments to that bill please get them to the clerk as soon as possible.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

My understanding—and please, committee, correct me if I'm wrong—is that Bill C-36 is a full repeal of section 745.6, the faint hope clause, other than for individuals to which it does not apply after the date it is passed. That's where the five years come in, because there are many individuals who can't go retroactive. So it's going to affect many individuals. That's just the way it is, and I don't have a problem with that.

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

Can I therefore conclude or assume that you do not support, or have serious problems with, the government Bill C-36, which does not repeal section 745 but allows the faint hope clause to continue to exist, albeit under some changed conditions? An inmate serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years would still have the right to apply under that section.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, Victims of Violence]

Thank you.

My remarks might take a little bit longer, but not too much longer, than ten minutes. Thank you.

I wish to thank the committee for inviting Victims of Violence to present our views on Bill C-36. I am appearing today on behalf of Victims of Violence in support of this bill. I am not going to speak on the body of this bill, since all of you know it very well. However, I will touch on the historical background.

As most of you know, or have come to know, the issue of the faint hope clause is not new. The faint hope clause and the issues surrounding it began with great controversy when it was enacted in 1976 when capital punishment was abolished. In fact, it passed by only six votes. Since then, subsequent governments have continued to struggle with it through the years.