Justice Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

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

Thank you.

My understanding is that under the Correctional Services Canada statistics that were released in April 2008, and the next set will be released in December 2009, of a total of 22,831 offenders under CSC's jurisdiction at the time, 4,429, or 19.4%, were serving life sentences, almost all for murder. Now, my understanding is that Bill C-36 is not retroactive. So I'd like the minister to explain.

I have a great deal of empathy for families who have members who are victims of crime, whether it was murder, rape, theft, assault, you name it. I'd like the minister to explain how he's going to explain to those families that will have to continue to live with the exact stress, fear, anxiety he's talking about, as a justification for removing the faint hope clause for those who commit these violent acts in the future, that the families who have already lost family members due to violence, or have suffered themselves, or a family member has been a victim of violent crime, are going to have to continue to live with that stress, etc. There are a little over 4,000 under CSC jurisdiction right now who are serving life sentences, almost all of them for murder, which means that at some point in the future they are going to be eligible for the faint hope clause.

How are you going to explain it to them?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, I guess you're probably aware, and I'm sure some of your colleagues will point it out to you.... And maybe this is the position you're taking. I'd be surprised if it is the position of the Liberal Party, but sometimes I'm not surprised—

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

It's a question. I'm asking a question.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If you're saying to me that we can go back retroactively and start changing the sentences of people, for instance, who were convicted ten years ago, that we can change one of the terms upon which they were convicted ten years ago by wiping out the faint hope clause for them, I'd be quite surprised. You know, of course, that in a split second there'd be charter challenges on that.

What I have done is within the Constitution. I have to move forward with legislation that I believe complies with the Charter of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights. And in doing so, as you can see, some of the procedures I have tightened up, so that it's every five years that you can apply for it, as opposed to every two years. And you have a small window, a three-month window, in which to make that application. That, I believe, will pass constitutional muster. I have no doubt about that. But retroactively to wipe this out, Mrs. Jennings, I think I'd have a major problem. And I think constitutional experts will agree with me on that.

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

Minister, on the sexual offender registry, it was in fact made retroactive, notwithstanding the fact that there were concerns that it might in fact violate constitutional rights, and to my knowledge it's withstood any charter application.

When you came up with this bill, did you in fact investigate and determine whether or not making it retroactive would pass the charter test, whether or not there was a strong argument—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's always a consideration, Mrs. Jennings.

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

And what was the response?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My conclusion was that there would be grave constitutional difficulties with changing somebody's sentence retroactively.

As I say, I have transition—

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

It doesn't change someone's sentence.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—procedures within the bill, and this will apply to all individuals in the future, restricting the opening that they have.

If you're putting that on the record, that retroactively you think we can start changing people's sentences, I'm quite surprised at that.

Again, I have to advise and I have to bring forward legislation that I believe will pass constitutional muster, that will comply with both a charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights. I have to do that. I'm satisfied that this piece of legislation does just that.

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

And you're satisfied that to remove the faint hope clause entirely for those who have already been convicted of life sentences and who benefit as of this moment from the faint hope clause, to remove that—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Completely.

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

—retroactively would be a violation of their constitutional rights, and therefore you are prepared to allow all of these families that you've been, in my view, weeping crocodile tears over to continue to live with the stress and the anxiety—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If I believe something is unconstitutional, you'd want me to.... Are you suggesting the notwithstanding clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Order.

Ms. Jennings, let him answer the question.

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

I did not interrupt him. He answered the question. I am now making a statement, and he's the one interrupting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Jennings, you are over your time. That is why I have to—

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

That's a whole other story.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I manage the time, Ms. Jennings.

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

The minister interrupted me and you allowed him to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Order.

Ms. Jennings, please.

Minister, please answer the question.

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

I was responding to his answer. May I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, you may not.

Minister, please respond.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We all have our opinions on this. We make every effort to comply with the Constitution, to work within it, and I believe we do that. We assist those victims. We try to make it easier for them to get to wherever there are hearings. We are restricting some of the procedures that surround this. But if you're asking me to ignore the Constitution or the Canadian Bill of Rights, I'm not prepared to do it. We have to make those decisions, Ms. Jennings, and sometimes it's not easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister.