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.
4 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Do you agree with my assumption that the only way you can ultimately completely do away with that stress to the victims is by bringing back the death penalty?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I don't agree. First of all, I'm against the death penalty, of course, as I think most Canadians are, and in the end you will never eliminate the feeling of victimization. You will never eliminate the hurt that has been inflicted upon them by some individual. All we can do is do what we can to minimize that, and I think we are minimizing that by getting rid of the faint hope clause.
That's all we're attempting to do here.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Brian Murphy
Great. We'll move now to Mr. Dechert, who I understand is going to split some of his time with Mr. Petit.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you to you and your officials for being here today.
I would like to say at the outset that for many years in my community people have said to me that they don't understand why criminals, especially people who commit the most heinous of crimes, murder, don't actually serve the sentences the courts impose upon them. Sir, in my view, people need to understand and have faith in our criminal justice system, and one way of doing that is demonstrating to them that criminals actually do serve the sentences the courts impose upon them. So I want to thank you for bringing this legislation forward.
Having said that, you've mentioned the families of victims, loved ones, and friends of victims. I wonder if you could tell us what they have told you in regard to the current process of parole eligibility.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Well, it's a very good point. When I have met with them their stories are similar in many ways. They start thinking about this prior to the 15 years. Then they're waiting. They don't know exactly when or even if the application is being made. Some of them have told me stories that in their heart of hearts they knew the guy wasn't going to get out anyway, but he made the application, in their opinion, to increase the pain these people feel. It's hard to believe that there would be individuals like that, but I have to accept what they tell me, and that is that some of these individuals put forward the application with no reasonable hope of having the matter successfully heard. This victimization happens again and again, and it continues on all the way through the process.
Even the ones I spoke with and said this is not retroactive, in the sense that we are not getting rid of the faint hope clause for the individual who has caused you this pain.... I have been impressed by the individuals—Sharon Rosenfeldt is a good example—who have come forward and said they want to make it a little easier, if they can, for people in the future.
As I said to Mr. Comartin, you can never eliminate the pain for what some of these individuals inflict on law-abiding, innocent Canadians. You can't get rid of that, but to the extent we can minimize that, I was impressed by people like her who would be prepared to make it better for people in the future. It's very impressive. And again, this is what this bill will accomplish.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Certainly, we all saw not only the great pain that was imposed on the friends and families of the victims of a particular case tried recently here in Ontario, but also the trauma it imposed on the entire community where those awful events took place. I think that's something we need to be very cognizant of.
You mentioned in your remarks, Minister, how this bill complements other pieces of legislation the government has brought forward, including Bill C-48. I wonder if you could explain how this will work in a complementary fashion with Bill C-48.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I'm here to testify, of course, on this bill, but as Mr. Comartin said, these bills are both part of the same process, which is to try to reduce victimization. In a sense, they do complement each other. In that particular case, a judge who believes it's appropriate can impose a period of ineligibility consecutively rather than concurrently. For the person who is the second or third or tenth victim of one of these individuals, their life is not devalued in the sense that there's no change in the penalty of the individual who has inflicted this pain on their families.
That is one of the bills that I hope is very quickly going to be before this committee and be passed by Parliament.
And you're right, they complement each other. They will bring about truth in sentencing and will send out the message that there are no “discounts” for multiple murderers in Canada anymore. Every life will be taken into consideration.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Before I share time with Mr. Petit, perhaps you could explain how this bill distinguishes between individuals who are already incarcerated for murder and those who will be convicted and found guilty after this bill comes into law.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
The bill is very carefully crafted. We have rules against retroactive punishment, against changing somebody's punishment after they've already received it or they have committed a crime with a certain set of laws before them. What we're saying is that this bill will be very specific. It will affect those individuals who are charged after the coming into force of this law. Anybody who has committed one of these terrible crimes will be charged and have the existing penalties applied to them.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
How would it affect currently incarcerated murderers?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Those individuals who have already been charged with murder would continue to be eligible for the faint hope clause, but with the new procedures, I have indicated they will have a 90-day window at the 15-year mark. If they miss that, or it's turned down, or they're unsuccessful, for whatever reason, they will have to wait five years before they can apply again, for which they will get another 90-day window. And then they will have to wait for the 25-year mark.
November 2nd, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.
My question is quite simple. In connection with the bill that you want us to pass as quickly as possible—it is a fine bill, I have already read it—I am going to tell you about a case we had in Quebec. And I would like you to tell me what the difference is.
In 1987, a man by the name of Denis Lortie killed three colleagues of the Parti Québécois. He was even planning on killing René Lévesque. He killed three people and injured seven. The judge and the jury gave him a life sentence. In 1995, exactly eight years later, he was free, completely free. He even works in a convenience store in Cantley, in the Outaouais. Three people were killed and seven are disabled for life. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
What will the new bill and the one you talked about, Bill C-48, bring to the table? Could you tell me that? It is extremely serious. This man killed three people and even wanted to kill Parti Québécois members. And now, he is free. What will change under the new bill that we are studying today?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I think this bill is very straightforward. Anyone convicted of murder after this point will not be eligible for what is known as the faint hope clause after 15 years. Their first opportunity for parole eligibility would be at 25 years.
In addition, with the other bill you've referenced, if an individual is convicted of two, three, or multiple murders, the judge then will have the discretion to have their parole ineligibility in consecutive terms. As I think Mr. Comartin pointed out, you could be waiting for 50 years if you start killing more than one person.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Brian Murphy
Okay.
This is the second round. Over to Mr. Lee, for five minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Minister, you didn't mention in your remarks that these rules applied to those convicted and sentenced for high treason; you only mentioned murder.
It's okay. I can read the bill.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
But you did omit that. This would apply not to just those convicted of first-degree murder--
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
That's correct.
You seem to skate over the fact that this bill retroactively removes the ability of individuals who are convicted of first-degree murder to apply for parole in anything but the 90-day window that follows the 15th year anniversary.