Justice Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Anything that is going to provide more information to victims' families to assist them in that communication process is going to be helpful.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

We'll go now to Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll begin by thanking you for your presence here, Ms. O'Sullivan.

I want to say that I've been on this committee only about 15 or 16 months, but during that time I have pondered some of the recurring issues we face. In my opinion, one of them is that sometimes the needs of victims are not consistent with the needs of offenders.

I'll step back a bit and say that I suppose in a grand general philosophical way, every offender we can rehabilitate helps victims. So in that grand general way, the needs of victims and the needs of offenders converge on the issue of rehabilitation. But in other specific ways, victims have needs that are not always consistent with the needs of offenders. So I was very pleased to hear your earlier evidence, because you articulated that very well when you categorized these needs as accountability, transparency, and compassion. I couldn't agree with you more, although I would have elaborated on that by saying that victims need closure, certainty, protection from further victimization, and a sense of equitable treatment weighed against the treatment of the offenders. And of course sometimes they also have some interest in denunciation.

Time and again we sit at this committee, and we always hear the voice of the offenders. You have to read between the lines, and not every member seems to have caught the same message that I have. So I was very grateful for your evidence here today.

I understand that sometime in the early 2000s the former government amended the faint hope provision so as to exclude multiple murderers from it. After listening to my colleague's comments earlier about how that party always insists on having evidence, I wondered if perhaps your search might have found any evidence from around 2003, when the former government, that party, made this change, I suppose somehow in support of victims, that they generated to support that change?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I'd have to check. I know there were some changes, I believe in 1997.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I won't disagree with you about the date, as I'm not sure myself.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I apologize, as I haven't actually looked through...but yes, it was 1997.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Did you discover any evidence in relation to encapsulating the victims' point of view that the former government used to support that change in 1997?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I don't have it in front of me. I can't answer that question.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

So simply beyond thanking you for articulating so well the needs of victims today, I don't have any further questions or comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

Everyone has had a question. I'm proposing that we now have Mr. Sapers appear.

Thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan, for appearing. We wish you very well in your new position. I know you've been in it for a couple of months, and we certainly do wish you well as you become the voice of victims in our country.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I would like to thank the committee for both opportunities before you here today. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're back in committee reviewing Bill S-6.

We have with us Mr. Howard Sapers, correctional investigator, as well as Mr. Ivan Zinger, executive director and general counsel.

I welcome you both.

You have an opening statement to make, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

[Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for accommodating us. I'm pleased to be back before the committee and to have this opportunity to assist you in your deliberations on Bill S-6.

As you mentioned, Dr. Zinger is with me. I'll make a few comments, and then Dr. Zinger will join in.

Also, I understand that the committee has received transcripts of our previous evidence given before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs back in June. That being the case, I am very respectful of your time, and I just want to quickly summarize some main points from that previous testimony and then move right into your questions.

From the perspective of my office, this bill needs to be placed in the context of other recently enacted and proposed legislation that will result in a significant increase in both the offender population and the length of sentences being served. Cumulatively, these measures will impact on the rate, cost, length, and distribution of incarceration.

The average time served for a murder conviction in Canada currently exceeds that in most other advanced democracies. Imposing an automatic parole ineligibility period of 25 years for all offenders sentenced to life imprisonment will create additional infrastructure and care challenges to meet the needs associated with aging in a federal penitentiary. The cumulative and increasing cost of incarcerating more offenders for longer periods of time prior to parole eligibility will be incurred over several years.

Using today’s numbers, each additional year of federal incarceration costs an average of $100,000. By contrast, supervision in the community, when that is appropriate, is about one-quarter of the expense of prison.

I will now ask Dr. Zinger to provide a bit more context and perspective to these points before we move on.

[Dr. Ivan Zinger, Executive Director and General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

As Mr. Sapers pointed out, the average time served in prison for first-degree murder in Canada is longer than that of other democracies.

In Canada, the average time served in prison for first-degree murder is more than 28 years, whereas in other democracies, similar to Canada, such as New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden and Belgium, the average time spent incarcerated for the same offence is under 15 years.

Furthermore, offenders serving a life sentence in Canada automatically spend at least two years at a maximum security institution, regardless of their assessed risk.

In Canada, a life sentence does in fact mean a sentence for life. One must not forget that life sentence offenders granted parole under the Correctional Service of Canada are supervised until the time of their death.

If enacted, Bill S-6 will impose an automatic parole ineligibility period of 25 years for offenders sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in the first degree.

For offenders convicted of second-degree murder, the parole ineligibility set by the sentencing judge, which varies between 15 and 25 years, will no longer be subject to reconsideration pursuant to Bill S-6.

Of the 13,800 men and women incarcerated in a federal penitentiary today, close to 20% are serving a life sentence. These offenders, the average age of which is 33 years, will likely become elderly before they are eligible to apply for parole.

The percentage of older offenders — those aged 50 years or older — has grown by 50% in the last decade alone. This segment of the offender population has different and often expensive accommodation, health, programming and palliative care requirements.

The Correctional Service of Canada will have to address limitations in an aging infrastructure that was initially designed for a different profile and younger generation of offenders.

Mr. Sapers, you have the floor.

[Howard Sapers]

As members of the committee are aware, my office's 2009-10 annual report was tabled in Parliament about two weeks ago. My report documents an environment inside our federal penitentiaries that is increasingly harsh, tense, crowded, volatile, and stressed.

As I reported, current conditions inside our federal penitentiaries are challenging the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada to provide safe and effective custody. Access to programs addressing factors contributing to crime, in particular substance abuse, family violence, histories of abuse, and trauma remain an issue when only approximately 2% of an annual $2.5 billion expenditure is spent for this purpose.

Effectively increasing the incarceration rate by curtailing or eliminating parole eligibility needs to be carefully considered in the context of the capacity, intervention, and programming challenges already facing Canada’s correctional authority.

The faint hope clause is tied to the abolishment of capital punishment in 1976. It was intended to motivate offenders serving long-term sentences. It does not guarantee that the offender will be granted parole. The concept of faint hope expressly recognizes the capacity of an individual offender to change, to be rehabilitated, and to become responsible and law-abiding, even after committing a most serious offence.

Bill S-6 will likely increase the period of time long-term offenders will wait before receiving correctional programming. Extended periods of idle time will most definitely impact on motivation levels and the ability of long-term offenders to participate in programs, especially as they age in custody and their health inevitably deteriorates.

Holding more inmates for longer periods of time and then releasing them without the benefit of effective intervention is not only expensive, it is ineffective.

To conclude, it seems to me that we need to consider proposed criminal justice legislation in the context of striking an appropriate balance between measures designed to incapacitate and deter against the equally important principles of reintegration and rehabilitation.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Ms. Jennings. You have five minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Sapers and your colleague, for your presentations.

I have one question. When you have answered it, I'll turn the rest of my time over to my colleague, Andrew Kania.

The four principles on which our criminal justice system and our Criminal Code are based are clearly enunciated. Given your experience with the corrections system, is it your considered view that with Bill S-6 the current government has struck an appropriate balance between measures designed to incapacitate and deter against the equally important principles of reintegration and rehabilitation?

[Howard Sapers]

The provision for first a judicial review and then a parole board review of parole consideration was expressly put into legislation to try to achieve that balance. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the intent behind the existing provisions was not realized.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Therefore, the conclusion would then be that Bill S-6, which would change that balance, does not strike an appropriate balance between the existing measures that were designed to incapacitate and deter against the equally important principles of reintegration and rehabilitation.

May I take it, then, that your considered view is that Bill S-6 does not strike that balance?

[Howard Sapers]

I think that the current provisions are serving the purpose for which they were designed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Sapers, I've heard you testify previously, not on this particular committee but before the public safety committee, which I'm on. You pointed out, in terms of the various pieces of criminal justice legislation going through, essentially that we have undercapacity, that we don't have appropriate mental health care programs in prisons, and that there are various funding issues.

To be fair to the government on this particular bill, I looked at statistics for 2008-09. In 2008, of the persons who applied, only 109 were successful. In 2009, it was only 131.

In terms of this bill and how many people are actually granted this parole early who would presumably be prevented now, this isn't really the problem in terms of the overall structure, because we're really talking about a handful of prisoners.

[Howard Sapers]

We're talking about a small number of prisoners in any given year, but we're also looking at the cumulative impact over years.