Evidence of meeting #37 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 apply.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
We can go to clause-by-clause if everybody is agreed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right.
I'm going to thank Mr. Altimas for attending and I'll allow him to leave.
I'll ask our justice department officials to take their place at the table.
We'll now move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-6.
Consideration of clause 1 is postponed, so I'm calling clause 2.
I note there are some amendments that have been submitted, and those are on clauses 3 and 7, and then the short title.
The question is on clause 2.
Mr. Comartin.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
To start off, so that we're clear, I'll be voting against this and I want a voice vote on each section. Clearly, I'm voting against it, as we heard from the last witness based on all the evidence that we heard. Of all the bills that I've considered as the justice critic, and looked at all the systems we have, this is as close to any system that has worked the way it was designed to work and is close to the absolute results that we wanted as any system within the criminal justice system we have.
To look at this bill on the basis of what.... You hear allegations that it's a methodology of doing away with the faint hope clause to protect victims. It simply doesn't do that. It's not going to do that if this bill goes through. The same stress that they're faced with will continue. There are ways of alleviating that stress and that suffering, by having a better communication system within the corrections systems, with better information and education of the victims, the families of victims, and the friends of murder victims. That would go a long way to actually resolving it. This isn't going to do anything, because that stress of knowing that at some point they're going to be faced, if they choose to follow through, with an application for parole at the 25th year is no different, no substantive difference from what we're faced with now in reality.
As we heard the evidence, it is somewhere between 21 years and 25 years before anybody gets out.
Starting with the title, the whole communication from the government around this is that in some way it's going to provide victims with relief, and that's basically false. That's not going to be the result at all. We're misleading them into believing that and augmenting their suffering when they are confronted with the reality of what they're still going to be faced with. On the other hand, by putting in place better communication, education, and process both at the initial time of conviction and then subsequent to that, at the times when there are possibilities of the person being released, it would go a much greater distance to relieving that suffering that the victims have from the murder.
Having said that, Mr. Chair, I will be voting against the entire bill and will be supporting the Liberal amendments, but I do want a voice vote on each one of the sections.
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I won't have an opportunity to say this again, but as a criminal lawyer, it is my opinion that we are in the process today of destroying a system that has always worked extremely well and has proven itself. I hope that you will remember that and that all of you, especially Conservative Party members, will recall the following sentence: “What if a lack of hope were to destroy a convict's desire for rehabilitation, resulting in more violence and more problems in our prisons?” That is exactly what we are about to do. So, it is obvious that we will be voting against this bill. However, we will be supporting the amendments, because we see it as the only way to lessen the shock that will be felt here.
My final comments are for the Liberals, who are preparing to demolish a system that they themselves implemented in 1976, by abolishing the death penalty. Ladies and gentlemen, you will be responsible for the elimination of a system that has really worked very well. In recent days and weeks, every witness we have heard from has provided evidence that this system really was extremely successful. And yet you are now preparing to sacrifice it on the altar of politics to avoid having to deal with some political problem.
But I'm going to stop there. I will continue to believe that the current system properly protected the victims. I am deeply convinced of that, whatever my Conservative friends may think, and I will be reiterating that view at every possible opportunity.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Liberal position on Bill S-6 is that the desire of the government and some stakeholders to put effective controls on the system for current offenders with life sentences for first-degree murder on their application for the faint hope clause is not objectionable. The government is not removing or attempting to remove a right that is already being enjoyed by inmates who have been convicted of life sentences without the possibility of parole before 25 years but who would benefit from the faint hope clause that allows them to make an application for early parole after they've served 15 years.
Therefore, the Liberals do not in any way find this government's attempt to put in controls objectionable, in the sense of saying that inmate X has that right after 15 years. There should be a window during which time the inmate can make that application. We feel, and we heard testimony, that the delay the government is offering is too short in some cases, and perhaps there should be a little more flexibility. That's why Liberals have tabled amendments on the issue. I'll speak to that when those amendments come forward.
On the issue of repealing the faint hope clause for those convicted on the day of or after the coming into effect of this piece of legislation, Liberals do not support that. However, the Bloc knows very well, as does the NDP, that neither one of them.... One has no pretensions or desire to form a government; the other has never formed a government and probably won't, at least in the near future. Also note that the repealing of that clause will only take effect 15 years from the date the legislation comes into force. So there has to be a little bit of honesty on that as well.
The Liberals don't support clause 2, but we will abstain from voting because we believe there will be a window of opportunity of 15 years in which to correct that piece of legislation.
I agree with Monsieur Lemay and thank him for his comment that this was one criminal justice procedure that actually worked well, and it was put into place by Liberals--exactly. And in the repealing of the faint hope clause going forward, hopefully Liberals will one day have the confidence of the Canadian public, form the government, and overhaul not only this but the whole criminal justice system to bring it into the 21st century.
On that note, as I said, the Liberals will not vote in favour of or against clause 2. We will be abstaining.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I don't intend to repeat what Mr. Comartin and my colleague, Mr. Lemay, have already said, but I fully agree with them. I am still very surprised to see the position the Liberals are taking on this.
You are asking us to vote on something that will demolish a system that you believe to be fair, and you are telling us that, in the relatively near or distant future, it will be possible to correct the legislation. I absolutely understand your motivation and what is behind all of this; it's the fear of demagoguery. Indeed, you know full well what the Conservatives are capable of when it comes to demagoguery. I, too, am well acquainted with that attitude. We see it even in the title of the bills they bring forward, and when they put out their propaganda. That demagoguery is a common feature in North America.
However, it seems to me that if we are convinced that a system is working well, then allowing a bill to pass which will have the effect of destroying that system is not an advisable position to take. By abstaining, you are allowing it to pass. That is what you are doing. You say that we will have an opportunity subsequently to restore a system that will basically be eliminated by this bill. To be perfectly honest, I find that to be a ridiculous gamble.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I just want to make one comment. I was very interested to hear Madam Jennings' comments, and I just wonder if she could clarify for the committee if restoring the faint hope clause for the Criminal Code will be part of the Liberal election platform in the next election.
Liberal
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
All right. It sounded to me as though that's what you were saying. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We're not in the election right now. Let's focus on the bill before us.
We have clause 2 before us. We'll call a recorded vote on each clause, as requested by Mr. Comartin.
(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
(On clause 3)
November 23rd, 2010 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We have two amendments on clause 3, first of all LIB-2.
Ms. Jennings, are you going to be presenting that one?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, I will.
As I explained to the witness who was here just before we moved to clause-by-clause, much of the testimony we heard with regard to the procedures and controls that the government's Bill S-6 would put into place might inadvertently deny an offender from being able to apply for the faint hope--not in most cases but in some cases--and the bill as currently written provides for absolutely no flexibility and no authority on the part of any individual institution to extend the deadline in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that are beyond the control of the inmate and which prevent the inmate from being able to make an application within the window that the government has put out in Bill S-6. Therefore this amendment by the Liberals would give a discretionary authority to the appropriate chief justice or his or her designate to extend the 90-day limit by a maximum of 90 days if the person, due to circumstances beyond his or her control, is unable to make an application within the 90-day limit.
Clearly that person would have to bring solid evidence to a chief justice or his or her designate to demonstrate why he or she was unable to meet the 90-day deadline, and then that chief justice or his or her designate would weigh whether or not those grounds and reasons provided were sufficient to allow for a prolongation of the delay. Then the chief justice might say “Okay, I give you 15 more days” or “I give you 30 more days”. But in any case, the maximum that the chief justice or his or her designate would grant under this amendment would be 180 days, which means he or she would only be able to extend the 90-day deadline by a further 90 days maximum.
We believe that this is perfectly reasonable. We hope the government would support this. It is based on evidence that we heard, and as I've said, it would apply only if a judge was convinced that there were circumstances beyond the control of the inmate, and then that chief justice or his or her designate would determine by how much time that deadline should be extended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Okay. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? You've heard it.
Mr. Dechert.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would oppose the amendment for the following two reasons. One is that we were told by the Correctional Service of Canada that they remind each offender to whom the faint hope clause might apply one year prior to the date. So at year 14 they are sent an official notice reminding them they have a year to apply to be released under the faint hope provision. Then they lead them step by step through the process at the taxpayer's expense.
We also heard in the Senate committee from the Correctional Service of Canada officials that they will be adjusting their internal procedures to reflect the new legislation. In other words, they'll now be informing the offenders 90 days earlier, so it will be a year and 90 days prior. So I guess it will be at thirteen and three-quarter years into their sentence that they'll be reminded they have a year and three months to file their application for early release.
In my view, that's a sufficient period of time to prepare their application. I can't imagine a first-degree murderer sitting in prison for 14 years and not thinking about the possibility of release. It seems to me they have plenty of time to do that.
The second reason is simply that making any significant amendments to this bill will require this bill to go back to the Senate for approval of the changes, and that will result in a significant delay. We think this is timely legislation that needs to be put into place as soon as possible.
Every day or every week, unfortunately, in this country, people are murdered. I don't want any of those offenders to have the right going forward to make this application, because I think it's not in the interests of Canada and it's not in the interests of victims and it's not in the interests of maintaining the faith of the Canadian people in our criminal justice system.
For those reasons, I will be opposing the amendment.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for the officials on this. Just so that it's clear to us, if this amendment passes and becomes law, this 90-day or 180-day period will apply to the applications that are being made between the time the law becomes final and the 15-year run before those murderers can apply. Is that correct?
I don't know if my question is clear. Is this going to apply immediately to immediate cases? This section is not going to apply just 15 years from now.
Catherine Kane Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would be preferable if we saw the wording of the amendment to comment on it.