Evidence of meeting #38 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was application.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you. Do you require any further information?
Is there anybody else with questions for the witnesses?
We'll move on to Monsieur Petit. You have up to five minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief.
Ms. Kane, I want to understand how the legislation would apply using a case that has already been settled. I want to know whether what we are doing could have been applied in the past. In Quebec, everyone heard about the case of Denis Lortie, who, in the middle of the National Assembly, killed three people and was later found guilty.
He is now out of prison. After serving eight years, he was released on parole. He wanted to kill members of the Parti Québécois. He was sentenced and later released.
If Bill C-36 had been passed at the time, could Denis Lortie have been released before serving 15, 20 or 25 years? This is an actual case. In Quebec, this individual is no longer in prison despite having killed three people in the National Assembly. If this had happened today, would he have been sentenced to 15, 20 or 25 years in prison?
4:35 p.m.
Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We can't speak in terms of today, but if that case were to arise after this law comes into effect—if this law is passed and is proclaimed into force and if the crime were committed after that time—anybody convicted of murder would not have an ability to rely on the faint hope clause. Their parole eligibility date would be set: if it's for first degree murder, it's 25 years; if it's second degree murder, it would be after a period of between 15 and 25 years. They would have to serve the full period of their parole eligibility before applying for full parole to the National Parole Board. There wouldn't be any interim stage of seeking a reduction in the number of years, which is what the faint hope regime provides now.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Monsieur Ménard, you have another question. You have up to five minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
This is something that has always concerned me. I understand that you are assuring us that none of the individuals who received this committed another murder.
4:35 p.m.
John Giokas Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I spoke to people at the Correctional Service of Canada. According to them, no one committed murder again. The 15 people were returned to custody because they violated the terms of their release, with respect to drug and alcohol issues. That is what I was told, but I will clarify later.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You may be able to check that out.
I recall seeing a television program a very long time ago. It talked about someone who was released on parole twice and who committed a third murder.
Is there a way to determine if that has happened before? That would mean that this individual committed murder at a very young age, was sentenced once and then released, and then committed a second and a third murder.
The individual would have committed the first murder at the age of 25, the second at 50 or 51, and then another. The third murder was especially heinous, as it also involved sexual assault. This supposedly happened before the person was 40 years old, or 50 for sure. This case was often held up as an example of the flaws in the parole system for at least 10 or 12 years.
I was expecting to see this case included in the statistics, but it was not. I may have misunderstood the program, or perhaps it was inaccurate, that is, the person may have been released twice, but not for murder.
4:35 p.m.
Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The statistics we referred to were for what had happened to the group of those who had first applied under “faint hope”. There would also be the case of those persons who were serving a life sentence and who waited until their parole eligibility date and then applied for parole. Those would belong to a different group of statistics. We couldn't comment on what happened to anybody who received parole after that. If you have witnesses from the correctional services, perhaps they would be able to provide that additional information.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
If you ever hear of someone who was released on parole twice and who allegedly committed a third murder, please let me know. I will assume that the case was fictional or that the person did not commit three murders.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I would like some clarification. I was reading the documentation from the Library of Parliament. For murder, could you tell us what the average length of time spent in custody was before 1976 and then after 1976? Offenders served a minimum of 22.4 years before being eligible for parole.
I would appreciate it if you could send us statistics on incarceration periods, especially after the changes in 1976.
4:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, sir. Before 1979, the average incarceration period for murder was 15.8 years. Afterwards, it was 28.4 years, and today, as you mentioned, another study....
4:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
According to a 1999 study, it was 18.4 years. Three or four years ago, the Correctional Service of Canada did another study, but I am not familiar with those numbers. You said 22.8 years?
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Fine.
I would appreciate receiving those figures and the corresponding years.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We'll move on to Mr. Woodworth. You have five minutes, if you wish.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you. I'm not sure that it will take five minutes.
I just want to clear up a little point that has been bothering me about subclause 4(1) of Bill C-36, which will change the wording “reasonable prospect” of success to “substantial likelihood” of success in subsection 745.61(1) and in certain paragraphs of that. I think I'm understanding that this is being considered a procedural change rather than a substantive one and is therefore capable of being applied retroactively to sentences for which the faint hope clause will still apply.
My first look at it gave rise to the thought that it really is more a change of substantive rights than a procedural change. I just want to make sure that I'm correct that the change applies to those who have already been subject and sentenced subject to the benefit of the faint hope clause and that someone has looked at it and has decided that it passes constitutional muster because it's only a procedural change. Or am I on the wrong track altogether?
4:40 p.m.
Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. The minister did indicate that those procedural changes were regarded as constitutionally feasible. They are procedural. We're changing it for those who are still subject to the faint hope clause in some respect--that is, for crimes committed before the law changes.
There are three changes. One is that the test at the first threshold is raised from “reasonable prospect” to “substantial likelihood” of success. Second, they have a time limit within which to bring their application. It is 90 days around the particular date. If they're unsuccessful in having their application advanced, they would have to wait five years before the next opportunity to bring forward another application. Again, the test would be a substantial likelihood of success before a jury.
4:45 p.m.
Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Those are regarded as procedural changes to tighten the regime that's currently available to those currently eligible for faint hope.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Not being a constitutional law specialist, it seemed to me that the change in the threshold might be more than procedural. But I'm going to take it from your answer that this specific question has been looked at by the department, and it's concluded that it is merely procedural. So thank you very much.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Is there anybody else?
All right, we'll suspend for five minutes to allow the witnesses to depart, and then we'll reconvene.