Justice Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

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

Yes. It may not be a short answer.

This question is to all of the witnesses, if you'd care to answer.

This bill does not affect parole applications after year 25. For a lifer who's been in 25 years, there's no parole ineligibility imposed after 25 years. I'm sure you agree with that, and I think that's what the bill says.

Given that one of the objectives of sentencing is successful reintegration of offenders into society, and given that this bill is focused on year 15 to year 25, are we losing opportunities to successfully reintegrate offenders of this type between year 15 and year 25? Are prospects better in that timeframe? In your experience, do they diminish in any way? Is someone better or more easily reintegrated at year 18 or year 20 than they are at year 30 or 35?

I'm asking you to address year 15 to year 25. Where are we better off as a society? If we get rid of the faint hope, we're going to lose that year 15 to year 25 period for reintegration purposes. Is this good, bad, or neutral?

[Rick Sauvé]

First of all, my belief is--and this is from somebody who was convicted and who served a life sentence, and continues to serve a life sentence--my sentence is going to be forever.

If the risk is such that the person shouldn't be reintegrated into the community, they stay in prison. And there are many men and women who are never going to get out. They're going to die in prison. I've worked with at least 16 people who have died from natural causes while serving their life sentences.

But the longer you keep people in, the harder it is to reintegrate them into the community. One of the things I studied when I was working on my thesis and I've witnessed in my work is that young offenders who come in and are sentenced to a life sentence and have a seven-year minimum are not getting out in seven years. Many of them are staying in 10, 15, or 20 years. And it's harder to reintegrate them into the community because their mental age and their experience in the community are the same when they go back out as they were when they came in. Their development is blunted.

I took a guy out on a pass just the other day. He is serving for second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 12 years. He's been in for 23 years. The problem was, he couldn't get into programs. They just weren't available, so he was in a lot longer than was necessary. He'd never seen a cellphone before. He had never seen some of the new money that is out. So trying to help him reintegrate into the community is a challenge. The longer you keep people in, the harder it is to reintegrate them.

I'm not saying that you just automatically open a door and let somebody out because they've served this number of years or that number of years. When a person is ready to start reintegrating, that's when you have to do it. And it's a long, slow process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll have one short question from Mr. Norlock, just to make sure the government gets one more.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

My short question is this, and I think Mr. Sauvé hit the nail on the head when he said, “My sentence is...forever”. I would suggest that people convicted of first-degree murder do have a sentence forever. We've heard today that they're on parole for the rest of their natural life. But the reason they are on parole for the rest of their life is that the person or persons they murdered are sentenced forever. They don't have a panel sitting here worrying about how long they should be dead. They're dead forever.

But we have to think of the living, I'm told. And the whole psychology behind that is that the person who is dead is dead. It's the living we have to worry about. But when we talk about the victims, the other side will say, “Well, you guys talk about them, but you really don't care”, and then we say, “Well, if you really cared you'd....”

My conundrum is this. I believed in the death penalty at one time. I do not any more. So here we have people who have committed murder. We don't hang them any more. So we have this worry now about what to do with the people we used to hang. At one point our society said we were going to put them in jail forever because the person they murdered is dead forever. And then we said, “No, that's not fair. We need to give them some hope, and we need to show them that they're not going to be punished forever.”

Mr. Sauvé, what this government is dealing with, along with the families of victims and society as a whole--because we are all getting the message, but it's just that we have different philosophical outlooks--is the question of when it is appropriate to begin the system for reintegration into society for a person who has committed that grave act of murder. We've heard it should be eight years, because in Europe it's eight years. I would say that no one can really answer that. I think Mr. Sauvé answered it best. He doesn't think there is a specific date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, thank you for appearing before our committee. Your testimony is helpful.

The meeting is adjourned.