Justice Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

According to the statistics provided by your department, none of these murderers went on to kill again. Only 13 out of 127 committed offences that sent them back to prison.

You seem to be making an argument of the fact that, in a very large number of cases, if not the majority, the judge grants the application to use these provisions, if the individual is eligible to invoke the provisions. Now, you wish to make the test applied by judges more rigorous. If the test were as high as you say, it would not be surprising to have individuals whose applications were granted by judges receive unanimous approval from juries.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If what you're saying, Monsieur Ménard, is that people who have committed premeditated first degree murder, for instance, might be let off because they won't be eligible for a faint hope clause in 15 years, I would have to disagree with you. I believe those individuals will continue to be convicted, as they should--

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You do not understand what I mean; that is not what I said. I said that you seem to be making an argument of the fact that once the judge allows someone to go before a jury, a great many.... Or rather, your reasoning is that parole was granted to a large percentage of those who were successful with juries. By making the test higher at the first stage—for the judge—to allow someone to go before a jury, it follows logically that the majority of people, if not all, would be successful with the jury and afterwards with the National Parole Board.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No.

Perhaps you would care to respond.

[Catherine Kane]

I will answer in English, if you do not mind.

I think your question relates to the notion that the test is moved to the very first stage, a higher test at the first stage, and if you're successful at the first stage, you're more likely to be successful with a jury.

Is that what you're suggesting?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes.

[Catherine Kane]

The current situation seems to support that those who do make a successful faint hope application do succeed in having some of the years reduced from parole once they get to the parole board, most likely because they have been able to make the case at that first stage. Although the courts have said that test is relatively low, this will increase the test to one of substantial likelihood of success. There are certain criteria that the judge and the jury have to consider in terms of deciding whether parole years will be reduced.

So there may be some agreement with your comment--it's very hard to speculate in that regard--but there certainly will be more at the front end.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I am going to change topics.

The people who put this system in place gave three reasons. One of those reasons that always comes back is that if people had some hope, no matter how faint, it would go a long way to keeping prisons secure.

It is better to give someone a faint hope than to have a completely hopeless person in prison. Do you agree with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

A very quick answer, please. We're well over seven minutes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, it's my hope that people don't get involved with this kind of activity and create the kind of victimization that can sometimes take place.

Monsieur Ménard, I don't agree; you can say that only 13 people went out and committed other offences, but many people would say that was 13 people too many, that there's a cost to society among individuals who do that.

So I'm asking you to have a very close look at this, even consult with your constituents. I think they'll agree with what we are doing here, getting rid of this in the future so that there is more truth in sentencing. We have to make sure we maintain that confidence in the criminal justice system, and this is certainly one of the ways to do that.

I'm sorry if I went on a little too long, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, that's fine. Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister and officials, for being here.

I just want to follow up on that last point. You drew a conclusion, Mr. Minister, that I'm not sure is accurate. We have a study here by the researchers from the library about the number who return to custody.

Ms. Kane, you may be able to help us with this more. My understanding is that not all of those people who were returned to custody were returned to custody as a result of committing another crime, but because of breach of parole. You could argue maybe that it was because of a technical breach of the law, so there was not a new violent offence in particular committed. Do we have the breakdown of that? We actually have in the study they've shown us 15 cases rather than 13.

[Catherine Kane]

I don't have that breakdown of why they were returned to custody. There were a variety of reasons why a parolee would be returned to custody. They are very closely supervised and sometimes certain things are done that are not as serious as others, and they are still returned to custody. But we can inquire of our colleagues at Correctional Service as to whether they can provide that information.

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

Would you do that, and provide it to the clerk of the committee.

In that same study we had done by the library, they did comparisons of incarceration rates as a result of convictions for murder in a number of countries, and Canada stands out, as even higher than the United States, for the number of years that people spend in custody as a result of murder convictions. They're higher than any other country they've studied. Are these statistics accurate? They're showing roughly 28 years are spent post-conviction in custody. Is that figure accurate?

[Catherine Kane]

That is accurate as far as we're aware.

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

Even though we've got a minimum of applications at 25 years, they still spend on average longer than that?

[Catherine Kane]

Yes. There's no obligation on a person to apply for parole, even at their eligibility date, if it is 25 years. Some get to that point and wait until they think they will have a more successful application. It's difficult to speculate on why people apply when they do and why others wait.

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

Mr. Minister, it seems that you're placing a great deal of emphasis for these amendments that you're proposing on the impact it has on the families, and I think we can all share that. But I would suggest to you there's an alternative that would be less draconian than getting rid of this completely, for the reason that we shouldn't get rid of it and why we first brought it in. You could introduce amendments to the code that would require on every application that there be a review that would not involve the family. In all of these that we get, the majority of them, the initial applications, and even oftentimes the second and third application, people are turned down. So rather than having the families and friends and other people who are associated with the victims of the murders going through this every time, you would have a judge and jury look at it.

We know that with a large number of these the recommendations coming out of the Correctional Services psychiatric and psychological reports make it obvious that this person is not going to be successful. So rather than putting the families through it, build in an interim phase, where a judge and jury would look at the situation, as the system allows for, and then not involve the families, because it would be turned down almost automatically because it's obvious this person is not eligible at this time. That would deal, I would suggest to you, to a great extent with the trauma the families are put through.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, Mr. Comartin, the victims I have spoken with are unanimous: they want to know of every development. If I told them there's going to be this interim process, and eventually if it looks serious or the guy is going to get an opportunity to make his case, you'll be informed of it, I have the feeling it would be unappealing to them, in the sense that they want to have more information about the individual who has caused them such suffering. To not allow them to be made aware of any application or any proceeding I think would be more problematic than the situation we have today.

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

Those are all my questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

We'll move on to Mr. Norlock for seven minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister and your officials, for attending today.

Mr. Comartin has set me off on another little track, but I'll begin at the first and hopefully we'll have time to get caught up.

When somebody mentions to me that because they took another human being's life, and the fact that society wants to keep them in jail for 25 years.... And it should be 25 years--in other words, truth in sentencing. When they call that draconian, I simply wonder what we would call the murder of the person who has no life left to serve, either on the face of this good earth or anywhere else. I think to remove the families, once again.... You know, we fought long and hard in this society for the victims' families to be able to even come to court and give a victim impact statement, which wasn't there when I began policing in 1970. We finally got the victim's voice to be heard, and now we want to take it away for the reason that we want to protect them. I think we should protect them by making sure that people who commit serious crimes spend the appropriate time incarcerated. That's what the victims and the average person on the street want to hear.

Anyway, Minister, keeping in the same vein of victims being continually victimized, when the bill was introduced I made a list of some comments from various newspapers and media outlets. A number of families and individuals who lost loved ones made some comments about these more serious and heinous crimes. Most spoke about the hardship they faced, about which some people are telling us now that they want to relieve that hardship, but I wonder.... I think we'd best communicate with them, Minister.

Here are a couple of the quotes that I think really struck at the basis of this whole legislation. The first one comes from Theresa McCuaig, whose grandson was murdered. It was reported in the Kingston Whig-Standard in June of this year, and I quote Theresa. She says:

It's going to be very difficult for our family to go through court three times in one year for each criminal, and if they don't get it they are allowed to re-apply every second year after that. So we're going to go through this hell every second year.

The other one comes from David Toner, whose son was murdered. Mr. Toner is now the head of a group called Families Against Crime and Trauma. It was reported in The Province in June of this year. He says:

Victims of crime are often referred to as the orphans of justice. The rights of the offender are seen by the general public to always supersede the rights of the public itself, and the rights of the victim. Justice is a meaningless term when someone commits the most heinous crime imaginable, and is out walking the streets again just a few years later.

Minister, I wonder if you could comment on that and comment on what you've been hearing when you've gone across this country and talked to victims of crime.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've actually summarized pretty well, Mr. Norlock, what these people go through, and that's what they tell me. The hell never ends. There's no closure. It simply goes on and on and on, applications. And as you say, in cases where there might be multiple murderers, it never ends and there's no closure, and it's wrong. It's wrong that these people have to go through this. To the extent that it's possible that we as a Parliament can place greater emphasis on victims and the law-abiding citizens of this country, we are on the right track.

I've told this committee before how pleased I was to appoint the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime. We're sending out the message that the interests of people who are victims are a priority. I want them to know that, and I want them to know that by passage of a piece of legislation like that, we are responding to those individuals who have been caught up in this vortex. Again, this is a step, and it is a very reasonable step in the right direction. I think it sends out the correct message.

The byproduct of it as well, quite apart from everything else, is that I believe it increases people's confidence in the criminal justice system. It actually hurts the criminal justice system when people read in the paper about an individual who they thought was gone for 25 years is now in court making the case to be let out on the street. It hurts the administration of justice in this country. To the extent that we combat that, we are living up to our responsibility as legislators. I have no doubt of that whatsoever.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

We'll move on to Ms. Jennings, for five minutes.