Evidence of meeting #35 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 process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
So it took roughly the better part of two years in total after the 15 years.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
We have statistics from Corrections Canada showing that for the average person, over this period of time in 2004-05, it was 23 years when they got out on their first application. In 2005-06 it was 21 years. In 2006-07 it was 24 years. In 2007-08 it was 23 years. This last year, 2008-09, is the last we have, and it was 25 years. Would that be consistent with what you see?
As an Individual
Yes. In fact, there are men I go to the parole board with now. I've been to the parole board, in my capacity as an in-reach worker, at probably close to 300 parole hearings, and I've never seen anybody get out at their date.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. McIsaac, with you as well, I want to pursue a bit the point Mr. Sauvé raised about the mindset of the person who would become eligible at the 15th year to make the application, and why they wouldn't do it. I think, having watched too much TV, we all have this stereotype of a con as figuring that the first chance they get they're going to do it. Mr. Sauvé has given us some comments about that. I can understand how initially at the 15th, 16th, 17th, and maybe even 18th year...but when you're getting up to the 20th year, you still have a large number of these prisoners, much more than a majority of these prisoners, not applying. Could you expand on that? I don't understand why they would not.
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
I'm not sure I understand either. I would support the reasons provided by Mr. Sauvé. The institutional environment in our federal penitentiaries is not an inviting and pleasant place. It is difficult, oftentimes, to stay out of trouble. A conviction for a minor or major offence creates a black mark. Involuntary transfers, perhaps back to higher security, are going to slow the process down. I assume there is a weighing in the minds of most of what their chances are, or what they believe their chances are, often reflected by the position that the Correctional Service is taking with regard to the management of their case, whether it be for the preparation of--
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Let me stop you with that, Mr. McIsaac.
We heard from Mr. Head in the last session that they approach the prisoner about a year before and have some discussion with the prisoner as to whether he--or she, in the rare case--is going to apply. Is it your understanding that the Correctional Service, at that point, would indicate what their recommendation is going to be?
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
No, I don't think they would. But the individual would probably have a fairly good idea from the ongoing reports and recommendations that are being made by his case management team.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
I think it was Mr. McIsaac who mentioned that he didn't understand the problem this bill is trying to solve, and one of my colleagues from the opposition suggested he didn't understand what the problem was either. Perhaps I can help you out.
There are two problems--two very big problems. One problem is that the faint hope clause is unfair and unjust to victims and the families of victims, in my view. The second big problem is that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
The public, in my opinion, is losing confidence in our justice system. Every week I receive dozens of e-mails from my constituents telling me our justice system only looks after the rights of criminals and that it does not stand up for victims and law-abiding citizens. When that happens, when hundreds and thousands of people believe our criminal justice system is not fair and not just and that truth in sentencing does not exist, they lose faith in our criminal justice system. When they lose faith in our criminal justice system, there's a tendency to take the law into their own hands. Those are two very big problems that this bill we're considering today is designed to address.
With respect, gentlemen, this bill is not about rehabilitation. I hear, a lot, that people can be rehabilitated, people should be rehabilitated, we need to give people incentives to be rehabilitated. That's not what this bill is about. This bill is about respecting victims and their families and truth in sentencing, so people will have faith in our criminal justice system, so they can go to bed at night and rest easy knowing that murderers are behind bars where they ought to be, and that the sentences the judges and juries impose upon convicted murderers are actually served by them.
That's what this bill is about, and that's the problem this bill is designed to solve. I hope that my friends on the opposite side of the table will understand that as well.
Mr. McIsaac, you mentioned the mission statement of the John Howard Society in your remarks, which I think you read, and I'll read it again. It is “effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime”.
Perhaps you could focus on the consequences of crime and tell me if the John Howard Society has considered the impact of the faint hope clause on victims, and the impact on public confidence in our Canadian justice system that is posed by the faint hope clause. Tell me, in your opinion, how the faint hope clause is just and humane to the families of the victims who are no longer here to enjoy their lives, no longer around--as Mr. Sauvé was able to do, to get rehabilitated, to get an education supported by the people of Canada, so he can go back into prison and help other murderers get early release.
Perhaps you could tell me how that's just and humane and how that focuses on the consequences of crime.
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
The results of a murder are never just and humane. The impact on family members cannot be underplayed. For decades, victims in this country have received the short end of the stick with regard to their dealings with the criminal justice system. Progress has been made over the last few years, evidenced by the increase in requirements for information sharing that have been placed on both the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service, and the appointment of a victims' ombudsman. I'm not sure how any system can address the grief and the sorrow of victims.
The faint hope clause, as it currently exists, has built into it the ability of the judge at that review stage, and the jury during their considerations, to come to a decision that no further applications under that clause will be entertained if the application is frivolous, vexatious, and harmful in an unwarranted way to the victims.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I wonder if I can move on to another question. We have limited time here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Dechert, you're actually out of time. Sorry about that.
We're going to move to Ms. Jennings, for five minutes.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I'll try to be very brief, given that I have five minutes.
Given the statement Mr. Dechert has just made about how this bill is meant to solve a problem that goes directly to the heart of the families of victims, who live with the pain and grief every day, I'm going to ask if you are aware of any study done by this current government of all of the families of victims of those convicted offenders who have applied under the faint hope clause, since the creation of the faint hope clause. This would be a study of people who have actually gone through the process--both prior to 1987 when the judicial review was brought into effect and since then--and their actual experience with the process. What did they themselves conclude, whether the offender was successful with the application or not successful with the application?
Are you aware of any such study that has been conducted, either by this government or any previous government, since the faint hope clause was first inserted into our Criminal Code?
November 16th, 2010 / 5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
Given all the testimony you have given, all three of you, and that you are aware of from previous witnesses, either before this committee or the Senate committee, regarding the issue of the faint hope clause, are you in agreement that if any government wishes to eliminate or repeal this clause, there should be those kinds of studies done, particularly when you have a parliamentary secretary saying that the reason this government is bringing in the legislation is for the families of victims?
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
I would expect that there should be a study or a comprehensive review, not only of the opinions of victims of crime but of the number of applications that have been identified as frivolous or that have been dismissed and the number of times victims have had to appear on more than two or three occasions to address or to be present at the reviews.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I have another question. Given the statement of the parliamentary secretary that this legislation is being done for families of victims, would you not agree that in order to have solid information, you would first conduct a study? You would conduct a study of the attitudes and knowledge those members of families of victims had prior to any application having been filed. Then you would do the same thing after they had gone through the process of an application under the faint hope clause.
I am aware of studies done before and after, in completely different areas, in which the conclusions of individuals who have lived through a particular process can be quite different from what they were prior to having gone through the process, because they gained a lot of information that allowed them to understand context and environment. In some cases, they actually say that this is a great process and it's something they believe should exist. I'm not speaking specifically of the faint hope clause. There are other processes where this happens.
Do you believe that this is the kind of study this government should be conducting prior to claiming that this legislation is for addressing a need expressed by families of victims?
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
Is that question directed to me as well?
Liberal
Interim Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
It is to all three of us. I will begin.
Yes, I agree with you on that point. We are living in a time period when there is a considerable amount of misinformation with regard to crime and criminal justice matters. Within the public realm, I think an information education package would be necessary to ensure that people are aware of their rights and where to go to ensure that they are in fact enforced.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you. We're out of time, but I'll take a one-word answer from the other two.