Justice Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you for a second, but the 80 to 100 would then be for first- and second-degree murder convictions?

[Kim Pate]

That's correct.

I do know that right now there are two more women whose cases we're working on who are eligible, which will bring it up to twelve. Since the inception of the faint hope clause, there have been ten women who have proceeded, and there are now two more who are eligible.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you.

Let me stay with this for a minute. Mr. Head, when he was before us the last time this bill surfaced before it was prorogued out of existence and then reincarnated once again, gave us a table. This was information that didn't come before the committee, because it was held up by the minister's office. But he give us some statistics from the last five years, from 2004 through to 2008-2009, of the number of people who were released and the years of their service.

What I want to ask you is, will you be surprised by the following numbers? In 2004-2005, they had served 23 years before being released. In 2005-2006, they had served 21 years. In 2006-2007, they had served 24 years. In 2007-2008, they had served 23 years. And in 2008-2009, they had served 25 years.

First, would that be consistent with the way women are treated when they make application, and do the numbers surprise you?

[Kim Pate]

The numbers don't surprise me, unfortunately. It's not as consistent for the women, because, again, we're working on the cases, so we're usually trying to ensure that the applications can go in as quickly as possible after the 15-year mark. The shortest period that someone has been able to have everything moved forward and get it before the court has been one year, and then it took another six months, or 18 months to get out. That's only one case, though, and I don't know—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is that second six-month period the length of time it took them to get through the parole process?

[Kim Pate]

That's right. That's one woman who was one of the ones—let's put it this way—recommended by Madam Justice Ratushny for review in the self-defence review. You can understand that the context was very different from most cases, and it was one where there was an argument that she probably should have never been convicted in the first place.

There was tremendous support, and hers was the fastest I've ever seen any case go through. The average is usually at least three years between when they're eligible and when they get out, if we're working on it doggedly to get it through all the process. It usually takes a period of time to get it before the chief justice, and then if the chief justice approves it, once we get the decision, then to prepare to go before the jury and then the hearing, and depending on the dates and how long that takes. Once that decision comes down, the next step is to apply with the parole board. Usually Corrections wants at least six months to prepare paperwork.

In that woman's case, we convinced—she was at the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge—the staff to work on her paperwork and have it ready to be filed the minute we had a decision. Had every step not been ready to go at the next moment.... That's the absolute fastest. I can't see anybody ever being able to get through the process that quickly again.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's because of the availability of the documentation, which has become more difficult to access?

[Kim Pate]

It's not just that, but because of her case. I would not be able to convince Correctional Services of Canada to have ready someone's paperwork to be filed for a parole application if they are successful in judicial review now. I've tried, and they have refused to do it. Until there's a decision, they won't work on the paperwork.

That was an anomalous case where in fact everybody agreed that she likely should not have been in prison. They agreed and developed the paperwork in advance of the judicial review. That means everybody working to have things ready even before the decisions are made. This meant it took 18 months.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I wasn't entirely clear on the answers you gave my colleague with regard to the three-month time limit that you have to make it. Overall, though, you left us with the impression that it was simply going to be impossible in the vast majority of cases to meet that three-month requirement.

[Kim Pate]

I think many people would be immediately eliminated because they couldn't meet that requirement.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Then they have to wait another five years?

[Kim Pate]

That's right, according to legislation as it is written now.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In terms of the capacity in our women's prisons now, do we have any excess capacity currently?

[Kim Pate]

Anticipating that might be of interest, I asked the question of Corrections Canada today. I was advised that there is currently only one cell double-bunked in the women's penitentiaries.

I challenged this, and said that I know that in most of the housing units a room that was initially set aside to be like a living area was converted to a two-bed bedroom. They indicated that they don't count that as double-bunking.

My count, if you counted all of those rooms, would be that most of the prisons are at overcapacity, all except for Joliette. And in Joliette there was a double-bunking in the maximum security unit.

They are anticipating, though, that there will be double-bunking in most of the maximum security units very soon, if they aren't already. At this point, they say there is only one. They also indicated that the commissioner has reported, according to their estimations, that by 2013 they will require another 152 cell spaces for women.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That will in fact be double-bunking. They just don't define it that way. You have to give us an answer.

[Kim Pate]

Yes. That certainly would be my assumption, based on what's happening now and the fact that they're not counting as double-bunking people being doubled up in the houses right now.

Grand Valley alone, for instance, has 20 women. From time to time, they're putting women in groups into the private family-visiting unit, which means then you don't even have the visits that are supposed to be happening for families. They're using those as housing units and not counting that as double-bunking, even when sometimes people are sleeping on the floor or on the couch. At one point in Grand Valley, there were six women in a private family-visiting unit. They had converted it temporarily into a living unit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We are going to go to Mr. Woodworth for seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Ms. Pate, for attending today. I want to say at the outset that I do admire and respect the work that the Elizabeth Fry Society does in assisting women who have been in custody to reintegrate and rehabilitate, although I wouldn't want you to think that means I agree with everything that the Elizabeth Fry Society has to say.

I want to just start by asking whether you have attended at any parole hearings yourself in relation to women who have been convicted of murder.

[Kim Pate]

Yes, I have.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

And how many?

[Kim Pate]

Over the years I've been doing this, I would estimate probably around 20.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

And of those, how many were attended by the victims? And by the way, unlike some of my colleagues, I believe the families of murdered people are victims also, so that's who I'm talking about. How many of those 20 parole hearings for convicted murderers were attended by victims?

[Kim Pate]

I'd say probably about a quarter of them. Certainly the last one I did was, and the last number I've done have been. It would now be the unusual one that wouldn't have victims there, since the inception of the resources to fly people in.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

To assist the victims to attend.

I must tell you I have not attended a parole hearing for anyone convicted of murder, but I imagine it must be a somewhat emotionally charged situation, in most cases at least, for victims to meet the offender under the circumstances where the offender is seeking release. Would that be an accurate supposition?

[Kim Pate]

It certainly can be, absolutely, and depending on what the relationship is, if there was a prior relationship or not between the parties.