This is the most moving testimony we have heard. We have before us two aspects of what it is to be a victim.
Rest assured that I would never be party to the decision to release people who have committed murders in the past, without being reasonably certain—we can never be absolutely certain—that they would not reoffend, for purely economic reasons. I don't think the people had done that before.
I sometimes find it hard to count the zeros, but there are currently 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences in Canada. That represents an expenditure of $400 million, since it costs $100,000 per prisoner. That is an average. The cost is probably higher for people who are in prison longer. I don't think that in a country like ours that is a significant expense; we can certainly handle it.
The concerns of the people who made the rules in the sections you mentioned, including section 745.6, were not about saving money. All of them, like us and even people who are non-believers today, shared a personal philosophy inspired by a religion that preaches forgiveness and believes it is possible that a person can change.
However, I absolutely agree with you: the onus must be very heavy in cases where there has been a murder. Your testimony has given me a lot to think about. My first reaction is: I don't see why we would give people who have been convicted of murder a chance, because murder is the worst of all crimes, it is cold-blooded, premeditated killing, it is committed by a person who is not insane, who was not prompted by some mental illness.
Initially, I thought as Mr. Teague does. Because I was against the death penalty for reasons dating from when I was more religious than I am today—that is a philosophy I have retained—and also because of the possibility that mistakes can be made. I am going to think about it again.
Ms. McCuaig, I do not understand how the people who committed that crime could be released on parole, if only because of the nature of their crime and the way they committed it. I see nothing inhumane about keeping those people in a prison for life, even when they are rehabilitated. And if they are truly rehabilitated, let them continue working to rehabilitate other prisoners. If they are rehabilitated after committing such heinous crimes, let them prove their rehabilitation and hope for nothing from the proof of their rehabilitation other than, if they believe, that they will have earned forgiveness in the next life for the heinous crimes they committed.
I do realize, however, that the number of people who have made applications under these clauses is relatively small. I am told there are 4,000 people in prisons at present. Over the years, only 265 people have tried to make an application solely for that pardon. Of them, only 53% have been allowed to make the application.
So 47% never got to that level. Only 127 applications were allowed. We agree, probably unanimously again, that things should be made even more difficult. For example, there was a time when only a majority of the jury had to be in favour. Today, it must be unanimous. Those people must first satisfy a judge that they may make an application. They must then convene a jury, which must be unanimously in favour, and go before the National Parole Board.
I admit that I cannot imagine granting parole in cases like the ones you have described to us. If there truly is forgiveness, they will have to get it in the next life. I think they should spend the rest of their lives in prison, doing something to make reparation for what they did.
In any case! I am still too emotional to say what I will do. Rest assured, however, that I am in fact going to examine the reasons why those who went before us created this. I think there are two types of reasons. First, so that a person does not despair, they have to be given a reason to want to try to rehabilitate themselves, to the point that they want to do something that would repair the harm they have caused.