Thank you.
I thank the committee on behalf of the John Howard Society of Canada for the invitation to appear. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss Bill C-48.
The John Howard Society, as most of you know, is a non-profit organization whose mission is the promotion of effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has 65 front-line offices across the country delivering services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into our community.
The John Howard Society does not support this legislation. We do not believe that there is, within the Canadian public, an informed consensus in support of 50-year minimum sentences. In addition, we do not believe that such sentences can be reasonably seen as effective, just, or humane responses to the causes and consequences of multiple murders.
As was evidenced by testimony before this committee on Bill S-6 dealing with the faint hope clause, the current periods of incarceration prior to release on parole in this country for those convicted of first-degree murder are already twice as long as in most western democracies.
How do we as a country justify doubling this already excessive time in prison? What will motivate a 20-year old caught by this legislation to work towards rehabilitation, when their first eligibility for parole will be at the age of 70? At what risk are we placing those who work and live with individuals serving a minimum 50-year sentence? What message are we sending, as a criminal justice system, about our commitment to timely and effective reintegration in support of public safety?
The backgrounder on Bill C-48 that the Department of Justice released in October of this year, entitled “Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers", reads in part:
Families of victims argue that the fact that life sentences for multiple murders are served concurrently devalues the lives of victims and puts Canadians at risk by allowing multiple murderers to be paroled earlier than merited...
This document goes on to say:
The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would address this situation by allowing judges to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on individuals convicted of more than one first- or second-degree murder.
I do not believe we can place a value on human life. The grief and hurt of family members following the murder of a loved one cannot be reasonably addressed through amendments to the Criminal Code. The process of addressing this pain begins with the provision of individualized support and services within the local communities, and through the assurance that timely and relevant information concerning the specifics of their circumstances is made available by the responsible government agencies.
Second, we currently have within our criminal justice system a conditional release process that has as its priority the protection of society. Although the timing of conditional release reviews is governed by legislation, the decisions to release an individual are governed by the assessed risk the individual poses to the community. As we know, the existing system is quite capable of extending periods of incarceration well beyond parole eligibility dates.
The proposed legislation potentially extending ineligibility to a minimum of 50 years addresses neither of these two concerns, nor does it enhance the concept of truth in sentencing or the public's confidence in our justice system.
I thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.