Evidence of meeting #33 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was application.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Woodworth, order.
In the future, you have to read that more slowly, because we have interpreters who are trying to keep up, and what you just did was virtually impossible to keep up with.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm sorry. I forgot about the translation.
In any event, let me summarize by saying there's a great long legal phrase, and what I'd like us to do before we're finished with this bill is to remember two things. First of all, we're not talking about the victim's family, because the victim's family are victims. They are suffering the loss of a loved one in a murder, and they are consumed by grief. Their emotions are upset and roiled, and they are not lawyers.
I maintain that having two contradictory statements placed before them by the judge is an inadequate way to communicate to them that the accused is not receiving 25 years without parole.
In any event, the other thing I'd like to ask about is the idea that faint hope reduces problems for prison guards. I wonder if you or the department have any statistics or any evidence that indicates there is a difference in the injuries or deaths to prison guards caused by persons who have faint hope for parole and those who have not.
5 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'll respond to both aspects, but with respect to your question regarding the prison guards, if the committee is intending to hear from officials at the Correctional Service, they would be best positioned to respond to that question. If you're not, we can undertake to get that information and provide it to the committee. But our colleagues at the Correctional Service do have that information about programs and safety measures for prison guards and what the safety record is.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
For now, then, if you don't have the information with you, I'll defer the question and I'll wait to see where we go with the hearings.
5 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
On your other point with respect to the notice that the judge reads out in section 745.01, that is a lot for a victim to absorb. As some of the committee members may recall, those amendments were included in a bill in 1999 that made a lot of victim-related amendments. Among those, the best route at the time to deal with some of the concerns about faint hope was to make sure that although it does seem a very formal way to provide the notice, there was at least some way for the record to indicate and for the victim to be able to access the information that it would be possible for the offender to bring the application after 15 years.
Other amendments were also made at the time to make it clear that the victim could have input at that stage and could also have input at the actual faint hope hearing, and of course victims also have input at the parole stage if it proceeds to that point.
From a program standpoint, we made other changes so that victims have ability to get financial assistance when they have to travel to faint hope hearings, and also when they have to travel to parole hearings. Over the years, many improvements have been made so that victims are supported in those processes, but it's been an evolutionary process to get victims the support they need for these difficult hearings. Although that seems awkward, it was a very necessary first step to start to make some progress to address victims' needs.
We can probably do better, and we do in the literature that we provide to victims now.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Just briefly, there is something we should probably do on every bill that talks about changing the amount of time people serve. I'm struck that we had debates here today, really, about whether it's the victims' code or the Criminal Code--it's the Criminal Code--and whether denunciation is more important than rehabilitation. If we would all take a good look at section 718, we all know it's a balancing act. There are all the principles of sentencing at play in this debate, which has been good.
My question is this. It seems that the impact of this bill will be longer periods of incarceration for a group, a subset, of the prison population. Perhaps this could be deferred to Corrections, too, but is there any way of calculating what that might cost? If it's not dollars, in terms of man years or person years, is there any way of calculating that based on the past experience of applications that were successful, etc.?
You don't have to answer that now, but if there were an answer or an analysis, we'd appreciate getting it through the clerk.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Assuming that Bill S-6 is passed into law, there will be no implications for 15 years, because that will be the length of time that people will have to wait...well, 16 years, till the anniversary of their 15th year.
After that it's difficult to predict. We have been unable to get accurate predictions because there are a number of other variables at work: a declining murder rate, an aging prison population. So we don't know, 15, 20, 25 years down the road, what the population in the prisons will be.
This is a question we've been asked many times, and that's the best response we can come up with right now. I'd suggest, if corrections officials come, that they be asked if they have better estimates.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes. I have two things, very briefly.
One I raised with the minister, and he confirmed that in fact since January 9, 1997, an inmate who has been convicted of one or more murders where at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997, may not apply for a review of his or her parole ineligibility, period. That's the faint hope clause. So that means any individual, including individuals who may have been found guilty this year of more than one murder, and of those murders, at least one of them was committed on or after January 9, 1997, does not benefit from the faint hope clause as it now exists in the Criminal Code. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
And Bill S-6 does not change that. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
The second point I want to raise has to do with the question that I believe Mr. Murphy asked, which was about the costing. According to our parliamentary researchers, and I believe the minister actually confirmed it, if someone was eligible--they were found guilty, the bill came into effect now--they would have theoretically five chances in which to apply for the faint hope clause under the Criminal Code as it now stands: seventeen years, five years later, five years later, up to twenty-three, and then at twenty-five they can apply as well--regular parole.
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They may apply every two years now.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Sorry, every two years, which is why it's five times. It's theoretically five times between the 15th year and the 25th year.
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Correct.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Under this bill, it would be two times only, as a maximum. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Year 15, if not successful, year 20....
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
And then at year 25 it's the regular parole they would be able to apply for.
So why is it that you're not able to calculate, then, what a projected costing would be?
5:05 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Maybe we misunderstood the question. We understood the question to be the costs for Corrections of the additional time for offenders who would otherwise perhaps be eligible for early parole and be supervised in the community rather than being detained in custody.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, but normally you should be able to. If you base it on the statistics you now have in hand, of the total number of offenders who, under the current Criminal Code, could benefit, could be eligible for or were eligible for the faint hope clause and actually applied, what percentage actually received faint hope? And then on the number who violated their conditions and were sent back, you could actually run a program that would allow you to project, within a certain margin of error, how many would be rejected and therefore would continue to serve. Corrections Canada knows how much it costs per day, so theoretically you can in fact give a number, work up a number of the projected costing based on the statistics that you already have. Is that correct or not?
5:10 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Our colleagues at the Correctional Service of Canada use a variety of strategies similar to what you've described, looking at past experience, to forecast the impact. However, as my colleague indicated in this case, there will not be any impact for the next 15 years.
In terms of the incarceration costs, again, if colleagues from Correctional Services are appearing, they would be better placed than we are to indicate how they deal with that. Their planning is always more than just the numbers. There are so many factors that come into play about where people are housed and the programming they need and so on.