Justice Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

Earlier in your remarks--and I stand corrected if I'm wrong--I heard you say that everyone who is given a life sentence will be subject to this new procedure. But that's not exactly what you intended, I presume, because it's only those who are going to have life sentences with parole eligibility dates between 15 and 25 years. Those are the people this affects.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Exactly.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So you do accept the retrospectivity now being imposed by this bill--albeit limited, but it's there. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Mr. Lemay, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Minister, I must say right away that I have a great deal of trouble voting in favour of this bill. I won't be able to do it because the bill will take away any faint hope from a number of individuals who could be reintegrated in society. I invite Mr. Petit to check what the court said about Mr. Lortie's conviction, since, contrary to what he was saying, those were not first-degree murders.

Having said that, Mr. Minister, that only applies to first-degree murders, meaning to those sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. Since 1976, when the death penalty was abolished in this country, the current system with the so-called “faint hope” clause has been working very well. What do you see wrong with this system?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think the system can be improved, and with this bill we will reduce victimization. I'm hoping you will reconsider, think about those victims, and support this bill, Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay.

I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that this system looks after the victims far more than you think. I have already worked with cases of individuals who submitted applications. Right now, 4,000 prisoners are serving life sentences without possibility of parole for 25 years. Out of that number, only 265 prisoners filed an application and 140 were able to go beyond the first stage. So, it is clear that, by taking a case, a Superior Court judge is concerned about the victims. No one can come before a judge without being aware of the harm they have caused and of the victims they have left behind as a result of the murder.

That being the case, I tried to find the figures, but there are none. Do you have the numbers to show us that even one of the criminals who were released after 25 years in prison reoffended and committed another murder?

The answer is “no”.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Not in the case of the faint hope clause.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

All right.

Do you have any evidence that one of those criminals committed manslaughter again?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you have statistics proving that one of those criminals committed another offence punishable by more than 10 years of imprisonment?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There have been a couple of cases where people who have committed violent crimes have had their parole revoked.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

They are among the 13 people who were sent back to prison. So that means the system is working. Victims are being looked after. Do you not see that, with the system that you want to enforce, someone who is no longer able to see the possibility of being released—because he really won't be able to see it anymore—will start working for the criminals inside the prison. As a result, violence will increase in the penitentiaries.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, Monsieur Lemay, we all have a stake in making sure that our criminal justice system and our penitentiary system work. We want these individuals to take the time to figure out that what they've done is wrong and that they've hurt society.

You said they're taking into consideration victims. In the examples you're giving me, they're taking into consideration the criminal--the individual. Yes, I can appreciate that his concerns are being taken into consideration if he isn't able to make an application after 15 years. I'm worried about the families these people have victimized. I'm worried about those individuals. They are very clear.

You said that you've been involved with these people. I think you've probably met some of them as well. They say, “Look, I'm victimized again when this person has the opportunity to get back out onto the street.”

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have met with some of the victims' families and I can tell you that they are prepared before they appear in court. You have to pass the jury stage before the court in the district or place where the murder was committed.

I don't think anything should be changed in this system at all. It works very well and it looks after the victims before someone becomes eligible for parole, especially an individual who has committed a first-degree murder.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think one thing we can agree on....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Mr. Minister, please make your answer brief.

Be very brief.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes.

I'm glad there's one thing I know we can agree on. You said those witnesses are prepared. You bet they're prepared. Do you know what some of them tell me? They start thinking about it sometimes even two years in advance. They are trying to line up their relatives and their friends. I believe you're right: they do come very well prepared. That's part of the torture they go through, doing this part of the preparing. They're prepared, but it's a terrible experience for all of them. They've probably told you the same thing.

We do agree on that one. When they come before these hearings, they are always very well prepared. It's a terrible experience for them, but they all do their homework, the ones I've talked to.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

The last question in this last round, Minister, is from Mr. Woodworth.

You have five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today to discuss this important bill.

Sometimes when I listen to opponents of bills like this, I get the impression that they just don't get it in terms of understanding that we're trying to look at things more from the perspective of victims than has previously been the case.

As a lawyer yourself and a student of the law, you'll know that historically, of course, our criminal justice system began over 1,000 years ago by way of the crown intervening so that victims didn't retaliate and take the law into their own hands. Instead, they were left with a sense of justice in the results the crown imposed.

I can't imagine what it must be like for a victim whose loved one has been murdered to go to court and hear the crown and the judge and everyone else say that the sentence is 25 years with no parole, and then find out afterwards that, oops, we were just fooling you; it's really 15 years with no parole. It must be like a kick in the gut, in my view. I can't imagine how unfair, how misleading, and how unjust that must seem to victims, and how cheated they must feel. I think the primary good thing I see in this bill is that this is not going to happen.

I know that this is a piece of law that can't apply retroactively. There are people who have committed crimes who are still, under this bill, going to get the benefit of the faint hope clause, because the crime happened before this bill was introduced.

I wonder if you could just tell us a little more about the improvements in the system for victims, even in cases where the crimes were committed before this bill was introduced.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think one of the very good things about this is that it adds some certainty for the victims. Rather than have a situation where the 15 years--and this is where Mr. Lemay and I agree. These people are very prepared for this, believe me. They are on top of this; they know when this matter could possibly be brought forward.

But an application doesn't have to be made at 15. It could be made at 15 and a half years, six months after that. It could be nine months; it could be after 16 years that they could make the application. There are no requirements for them at any particular time. So yes, they have to continue to be prepared at any time.

What this bill will do is say, look, you've got 15 years--and I was talking with one of my colleagues over there. They've got 15 years to prepare for this, to get their act turned around, and they've got a three-month window then to make the application. If they miss that, if they decide their situation is not one that should be before the courts, or they realize themselves that they have not been rehabilitated or they might be a danger to the public and for whatever reason decide not to make that application, they'll still have the opportunity at the 20th anniversary of their crime. Again, they'll have another three-month opportunity to do that.

So it provides some certainty. Again, I think this will be one of those things that will be welcomed by victims. But I thank you for your comments.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

One minute.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just to put this in context, Minister, under the current legislation I had the idea or the impression that these faint hope applications--even if they are refused or if they are heard--can be raised again and again and again. Is it every two years?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, every two years.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So this will at least give victims a little more peace of mind for a longer period of time between applications. Is that correct?