Justice Committee on June 11th, 2019

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks, James.

The way the bill reads is that “up to 40 years” could be substituted for 25 years. Do you foresee the discretion being used to make it something between 25 and 40 years, or is this pretty much a case of if it is being substituted, it will be 40?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

No. I see it strictly as the ability of the judge to determine what factors aggravated the kidnapping, assault and murder. Looking at the age of the murderer, the age of the victims, the judge will have full discretion on what they set as a time.

We're seeing that now in some of the cases, where multiple murderers can get consecutive sentences. The judges are not necessarily doing it always in 25-year blocks. That proves to me that our judicial system is working, that the court still has the complete power to determine sentencing based on each and every individual case.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you think, if there were an instance where the 25 years was substituted with something over 25, it would give another ground for appeal to the individual and drag the matter out further? Obviously, the conviction would stand, but the matter would be before the courts for an even longer period of time.

Is that of any concern?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

As we know, life sentences and times of parole and eligibility for all crimes change from time to time. It usually is based on cases going forward, not retroactively. For those who are serving life sentences based on 25 years, I don't see it changing if they decide to increase that to 30 years or decrease it to 20 years in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Colin, I'm sorry, but we're out of time. I'm sure you can still get time in the next round.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Randall.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you.

It's good to see you, James.

We were serving on the defence committee together, and I have enormous respect for Mr. Bezan, in particular for his concern for victims of crime. I was the public safety critic in the last Parliament when this bill first came forward. Mr. Bezan's dedication to victims is unquestionable, and I thank him for the work he does on that.

I know we all share the concern for victims. I think none of us can ever really understand the trauma of families of victims of these most serious crimes, or the victims themselves. I know that around the table we all support improving services for victims. It's one of the things our justice system has a long way to go in.

That said, I opposed this bill in the last Parliament, and I continue to have serious concerns about it. As Mr. Bezan knows, I taught criminal justice for 20 years and spent time in and out of prisons and the parole system. I'm quite familiar with the way it works. The question of safety within the institutions, both for inmates and for correctional workers, comes up with this bill.

If we take away—as the Conservative government did—the faint hope clause, we take away the possibility of parole for people. There are good studies that show people tend to become unmanageable within the prison system if they have nothing left to lose. They tend not to participate in rehabilitation programs, and they tend to misbehave, including with violence, because they have nothing left to lose, because they're not getting out.

The faint hope clause, which was in place from 1976 to 2011, allowed people the chance of applying for parole before 25 years. There were more than 1,000 cases dealt with. I think it was 1.3% of people who were paroled under the faint hope clause, and of course, none of them repeated their offences.

Have you talked to the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers about your bill and the question of safety within the institution?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I have. Stony Mountain penitentiary is in my riding, so I meet with UCCO all the time. We have talked about this bill over the years.

I'll also draw your attention to the PBO report on my bill from April of this year. It references a study that was done by Loyola University Chicago. It used empirical evidence on a number of disciplinary actions taken on different statuses of convict, including men versus women—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

That was in the U.S. system.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes, it was in the U.S. system, in the state of Illinois.

What they found is that the number of disciplinary actions against those who were incarcerated for life sentences was lower than for the general inmate population. The PBO referenced that because that type of analysis doesn't exist here in Canada.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It does. In fact, there was the 2010 internal study by the Department of Justice.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Oh, yes, there was the Department of Justice report entitled “An analysis of the use of the faint hope clause”, so they do cite it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It showed exactly the opposite.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

The PBO report talks more about the lower rates for recidivism. I think that, again, we need to dig down further on that type of empirical evidence.

If the current lifers in the inmate population aren't having an increased number of disciplinary actions taken against them compared to the number for the general population incarcerated across Canada, I don't see that as being a big deal.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

But that is what the Department of Justice study in 2010 found.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I don't have the report in front of me. What they say is that the methodology of the report does not allow the impact of earlier parole to be distinguished from parole decision-makers' ability to assess an offender's risk of reoffending on recidivism, and they look only at the costing versus the actual impact on the population.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I would emphasize again that it's not just the correctional workers, although that is one of my main concerns since I have a correctional facility in my riding as well, but it's also other inmates and the safety of other people who have been sentenced who are subject to violence as a result of the lack of any opportunity for people to think that they should behave in order to possibly get parole at an earlier date.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I would just say, from my discussions and from anecdotal evidence I have collected by talking to members of UCCO, that it's a dangerous environment regardless of whether or not people are getting parole eligibility at year 25 versus at year 40. Some of the convicts who are in there have a propensity to be violent, and they would rather deal with those individuals in a prison setting than allow them to be on the street. First of all, let's be compassionate to the families of the victims. Second is the concern about recidivism and whether those individuals will reoffend upon release.

To your point, if the Parole Board of Canada isn't releasing the small group of individuals we're talking about here—maybe three a year are convicted—those individuals are never getting released anyway. Will we be changing their behaviour while they're incarcerated? I don't think so. If they're psychopathic at the beginning of this—and all the psychoanalysis that is done shows that most of these people score very high on the psychopathic threshold—then they're going to be incarcerated indefinitely.

The argument you're making, Mr. Garrison, doesn't change, because those individuals are still in jail.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I agree with you, Mr. Bezan, that we have limited evidence, but the one piece of evidence we do have, which was the extensive study of the faint hope clause, did show that the behaviour of inmates with long sentences was improved if they had the possibility, however faint, of an earlier parole. I think the evidence—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

That study was done in a relatively short period of time after the faint hope clause was rescinded.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It's a study from 2010. It was done before.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

That was before it was rescinded?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Yes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

What we need is the empirical evidence to see whether or not those numbers have changed over time.