Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks regarding Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.
There is no doubt that the creation of section 745 was unique in the criminal law of this country. However, this section was included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976 and it was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs committee before it was finally debated and passed by Parliament.
Rather than the original proposal to have three judges to hear a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would decide the case instead and this was done specifically to increase public participation in the process.
There was even a press release at the time which highlighted this provision in the proposed legislation. Clearly there was debate and communication in the public arena and efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as possible.
Let me review briefly how the provision works because there are many misconceptions about the process. An offender whose parole ineligibility period exceeds 15 years may apply for a judicial review hearing after at least 15 years have been served. Provided the criteria are met a superior court judge in the province in which the offender was convicted empanels a jury to hear the application.
In making a decision on the application the jury considers the character of the applicant, the applicant's conduct while serving his or her sentence, the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted and such other matters as the presiding judge deems to be relevant.
Some people who are against section 745 hearings suggest that the judicial review process is equivalent to automatic parole, but this is not so.
First of all, I would like to say that even though it is true that 36 applicants out of 47, or 77 per cent, have obtained favourable decisions to date, the fact is that juries are free to reduce or maintain the period of ineligibility for parole.
Several juries, particularly in Ontario and in Alberta, have not allowed some offenders to apply for parole. Moreover, a decision in favour of the applicant does not mean that he will automatically be granted parole.
As noted by the Supreme Court, section 745 simply allows the offender who obtains a favourable decision to submit an application to the National Parole Board. There is no guarantee that parole will be granted.
Therefore, based on information they are given, jury members, our fellow Canadians, choose to allow some offenders to apply for parole.
The jury does not have the mandate to determine the length of the sentence or the manner in which it must be served. An offender who has received a life sentence will serve his sentence for the rest of his life, whether or not his period of ineligibility for parole has been reduced.
Parole does not mean the end of the sentence, but rather the beginning of the "community phase" of the sentence. In short, a life sentence never ends, it stays in effect throughout the offender's life.
Another misconception is that all or even most offenders convicted of murder will apply for a judicial review hearing. This has not proven to be the case. At the moment 128 offenders are eligible to apply for a judicial review but only 71 have actually made an application.
One argument frequently put forward to discredit section 745 is that families of victims are left out of the process and their rights are ignored. I would emphasize that judicial review is a public process. Although judges have not admitted victim impact statements as evidence so far, this government has introduced legislation in the form of Bill C-41 which would permit the introduction of victim impact statements as a matter of course in these hearings. When passed, this amendment would give victims a greater role and achieve a better balance in the process.
In conclusion, I would urge my colleagues to contemplate seriously what the courts have said in relation to this provision. For example in Regina v. Vaillancourt, the court concluded that section 745 hearings strike a balance between the considerations of leniency for the well-behaved convict in the serving of his sentence and the community interests in repudiation and deterrence. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the purpose of a section 745 hearing is to call attention to changes in the applicant's situation which might justifiably impose a less harsh penalty.
While cynics such as the opposition Reform Party members may say that offenders cannot change, the Canadian Sentencing Commission noted that some offenders, and I quote: "genuinely repent or make changes in their lives which alter their risk to the public or alter the public's interest in seeing them so severely punished".
Obviously, the courts and the Canadian Sentencing Commission think it is both fair and justified to have a section that provides for a review of sentences, since human beings can change and rehabilitate.
The clearest message of all probably comes from jurors, who are ordinary citizens like you and me, Mr. Speaker. To this day, 36 juries have determined that the parole ineligibility period should be reduced for some applicants. Is this not clear evidence that this section is both fair and desirable?