Evidence of meeting #65 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
Yes. You're correct.
They continue to be serving a life sentence. They continue to be under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada and they're subject to conditions, and special conditions in certain instances, and their parole can be revoked so that they can be returned to the institution.
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Can I just add something? I just want to make sure that one of the statements you made gets full appreciation.
For most of the first-degree life offenders with 25-year parole eligibility, the average amount of time they stay inside with us is about 28 years before they get parole, so a couple of years after their 25-year parole eligibility date. However, under this bill if somebody were to get life with a 40-year parole eligibility, I would actually have them physically taking up space for another 12 years before they're eligible. Although the sentence isn't longer, the period of time that they're incarcerated and taking up a cell is longer.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you. That's clear.
It's almost tempting, Ms. Brisebois—I know Mr. Casey was alluding to it. I wish I could be at the water cooler of the Parole Board this Monday morning or the day after the announcement by the Prime Minister that life means life. I know we'll discuss it later if we continue with this bill or we suspend it for a bit, because it seems there might be things that will have some type of impact. The same offence seems to be on target for the government.
I seem to understand that the Parole Board was not the correct organization to discuss or decide on the actual eligibility because there would be a choice. Could you have done the same type of review, after 35 years, as the cabinet or the public security minister? If the law would state it, would you be able to do the work? I guess the criteria should be the same.
Anyway, I don't know if you have any.... I was insulted for you, but you know, that's me.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Madam Boivin, I don't know if the Parole Board could answer a question about legislation that hasn't even been presented to the House of Commons.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I don't think it's really a fair question to be asking you. If you'd like to respond at all, it's up to you.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
As you mentioned, it hasn't been tabled, so I'm unable to.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
It's the same for us. We're all talking, but we'll suspend the bill in virtue of it.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
First of all, thank you for coming today and talking to us about this private member's bill. I think I say on behalf of everyone here that both the Correctional Service and the Parole Board do very tough work for Canadians. Not always does everyone understand exactly what you do, and often you get criticized for different things, but from our political side we understand, we do appreciate what you and your staffs do, and we want to thank you for that.
With that, I'm going to call on the mover of the motion, Mr. Mayes, to talk to us. We have had some discussion. There was an announcement last week about a future government bill. We chatted on the phone about what we may want to do with clause-by-clause, so I leave the floor to you, Mr. Mayes.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In light of last week's announcement by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice of our government's intention to bring forward a bill that would say life is life, to mean life, I would ask the committee to defer the clause-by-clause until I have an opportunity to see the bill and make an assessment of whether I'd want to continue with this bill.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Just for the committee's information regarding this bill, Bill C-587, we have until May 1 to report it back, so we do actually have lots of time. Based on the discussion, I'd take a motion to defer the clause-by-clause until future notice.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Can I just say a few words? I think it's wise on your part to do so because I was really wondering what we would be doing on clause-by-clause. More power to you to have noticed that it might contradict a future bill that is coming, but we'll see it when we see it. I have no problem. The NDP doesn't have any problem with suspending it.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Is there anybody else?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Just so you know, here's what's happening.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
No we're not travelling; it didn't get approved.
On the 11th, which is this week, we are continuing our discussion of the fetal alcohol study. Thank you to everyone for submitting witnesses. We've contacted them all. We will have committee meetings on March 11, 23, which is the Monday, and 25. That will cover off all the committee members' witnesses whose names were submitted.
There are a few, if you are interested, who have turned us down, not wanting to appear. You can check with the clerk whether they were yours. Even with that, we can still accommodate them if they change their minds.
The issue I need to bring forward is this. The request from the House is that we report back by the 26th, but if we finish seeing witnesses on the 25th, having a report done by the 26th is virtually impossible. So with your indulgence, I'm going to ask that we get that date extended to the first week back after the two weeks in April. Is that okay? I think if you all talk to your whips, we can maybe do it with unanimous consent in the House and get that done.
Those are the two things that we have. We have that and then we have March 30 and April 1 still not taken, and obviously it will depend on what we see with this bill. So we have Quanto's law, Bill C-35; the drunk driving bill; and the mains that we could deal with.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I was happy.
My suggestion is that maybe we'll get through the fetal alcohol study, we'll have the subcommittee on agenda, and we'll pick one of these three things. So have a thought about what you want to do, and we'll do that.
With that, the meeting is adjourned early today. Thank you very much.
