Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have a point of order.

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

I believe the member is mis-characterizing the statement of the ombudsman. In fact, Ms. O'Sullivan said that she did cursory consultation with a couple of individuals and one or two groups. She was not able to do it in-depth, but based on the consultation she was able to do she recommended that the faint hope clause be repealed going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's not a point of order.

Continue.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Sir, do you accept that the ombudsman, in speaking for victims and in telling us that this legislation was strongly supported by victims, was in fact providing us with an evidence-based approach?

[Patrick Altimas]

I accept that the ombudsman for victims speaks for victims and has gathered information from that angle.

I am not coming to you from an angle where I represent inmates or victims. I am here as a representative of community-based organizations that work in crime prevention and criminal justice, with both in mind when they do their work. I come from the point of view that criminal justice legislation and policies should be evidence-based on more than just one piece of evidence.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I agree. In fact, I very much understand that your work involves you in concerns about rehabilitation for offenders, whereas my work as a legislator requires me to consider not only the rights and interests of offenders, but of victims also.

Have you considered, for example, the impact on victims of the present system under the faint hope clause, which means that after the 15-year period has passed, victims must wait day by day to learn whether or not, and when, an offender will make an application for faint-hope early release?

[Patrick Altimas]

Yes I have, and I'm sure that for certain families and certain people close to the victim it can be anxiogène, as we say in French. It can be stressful and very difficult.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If you have the opportunity, I would highly recommend that you examine Ms. O'Sullivan's evidence, because she presented three principles under which she felt this bill was supportable—accountability, transparency, and compassion. If you were to read her evidence, I think you would gain some insight into why it is that victims do support this bill, and why the government is pursuing it.

I have no other suggestions for you. If I have some time left, I would be happy to share that with Mr. Dechert.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert has less than one minute to go.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'll simply ask you one question, Mr. Altimas. Are you aware that in 1997 the faint hope provisions that existed then were amended to remove the faint hope possibility for multiple murderers like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, Russell Williams? Are you aware that the law was amended in that way by the previous government?

[Patrick Altimas]

Yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. Did your organization make any submissions at the time that bill was before the committee?

[Patrick Altimas]

I couldn't tell you, because in 1997 I wasn't on the board, nor the executive director. I couldn't tell you.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

The association did exist then, didn't it?

[Patrick Altimas]

It existed, yes. We've been there since 1962.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Are you aware if the previous government that introduced that amendment put forward any study done on victims at that time? Presumably, they had the same concern about victims that we have today.

[Patrick Altimas]

I'm not aware. As I say, in 1997 I was more involved in the day-to-day operations of an organization.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're out of time.

Ms. Jennings.

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

I have five minutes?

Thank you very much for your presentation. I really appreciated it. I also appreciate the approach taken by your association, which is to base its views on facts and science—“evidence-based”, as you said.

There are two parts to this bill. One has to do with certain controls over the application process for an inmate sentenced to life in prison. A 90-day period would apply after an inmate had served 15 years in prison.

We have heard quite a lot of testimony, including from officials with the Correctional Service. According to their testimony, even though the majority of applicants had adequate time to obtain and complete all the documents in support of their application for early parole, it could happen that circumstances beyond the control of the inmate might prevent him or her from completing the application in the 90-day timeframe.

On that specific point, would you agree that the period for applying should be extended?

[Patrick Altimas]

Yes, absolutely. If you look at the timelines that are laid out—I did not study the bill in detail because that was not the purpose of our particular exercise—it is clear that they are quite restrictive.

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

Liberal members will be moving an amendment to give the judge the discretion of extending the period from 90 to 180 days if the inmate can demonstrate that circumstances beyond his control prevented him from meeting the 90-day deadline.

I fully understand your opposition to the government's amendment abolishing the right of inmates convicted of first degree murder to apply under the faint hope clause from the day the bill is passed and subsequently. Your reasons in that regard are very clear.

You asked a question of my colleague, Mr. Comartin, regarding the idea of notifying victims' families that the inmate did not exercise his right to apply and that the next time he would be eligible to exercise that right would only happen five years later, on a specific date. I'm sorry, but I did not understand whether or not you were in favour of that.

[Patrick Altimas]

Yes, we certainly are.

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

Fine, I have no further questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

The Bloc has said they don't have any further questions.

Do we want to go to clause-by-clause, Mr. Dechert?