[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 19, 1995
.1536 
[English]
The Chair: Order. Today we have before us Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, and the representative and the individual who introduced the bill in question, John Nunziata, member of Parliament, is before the committee to make his presentation and to answer questions as they are asked.
Mr. Nunziata, I see you have speaking notes you've given to each member of the committee. You can proceed and make your presentation.
Mr. John Nunziata, MP (York South - Weston): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Chairman, permit me to congratulate you on your elevation to the chairmanship -
The Chair: It's a lateral move.
Mr. Nunziata: I'm sure your constituents will be well pleased.
To the new members of the committee, as a former member of this committee I know this committee was mandated to deal with an issue of great concern to the people of Canada, and that is the reform of the criminal justice system. I'm pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to talk about Bill C-226, which if adopted would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. I know colleagues are aware of this issue because we dealt with it in the House. There was a debate in the House and I'm sure most members have received representations from constituents and others.
This particular issue has been of concern to me for a goodly number of years. I'm pleased the government has maintained its commitment to private members' business and to free votes in the House of Commons. When this vote was taken at second reading it was a free vote. I can say without question the government did not in any way interfere with the vote or try to persuade people to vote one way or another, notwithstanding the fact that this bill is diametrically opposed to the stated position of the government.
To begin with, I'd like to outline my experience with the judicial review process provided by section 745 of the code.
I first became aware of this issue, as I indicated, some six or seven years ago. In 1991 I introduced a private member's bill identical to Bill C-226. That particular bill died on the Order Paper without debate. On March 17 of last year I introduced Bill C-226, which was debated on October 19 and 26 and December 8, before being passed by the House on a vote of 136 to 103.
I've been involved personally in two judicial hearings. The first was in January 1994, when I represented the family of a murder victim and attempted to obtain standing for them at a judicial review hearing. I should say I was unsuccessful in that particular attempt. The judge ruled that the provision as it stands did not allow for the families of victims to have standing at these hearings.
The second hearing I was involved in was in June, when I was, believe it or not, subpoenaed by an inmate's lawyer to be a witness at a section 745 hearing. In that particular case the applicant was successful in reducing his parole ineligibility from 25 years to 20 years.
.1540
While my involvement in seeking to repeal section 745 dates back several years, the roots of this issue stretch back to the 1976 parliamentary initiative to abolish the death penalty in Canada. At that time a series of compromises and deals were struck in order to abolish capital punishment. As a result, Parliament enacted a law that provided that if you were convicted of first-degree murder - that is, a planned and deliberate murder - then you would be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. Those convicted of second-degree murder would be sentenced to life with parole eligibility set, at the judge's discretion, between 10 and 25 years.
At that time these sentences seemed clear and unequivocal and, in my opinion, fair and reasonable.
However, that is not where our predecessors let it stand. Some MPs were of the opinion that 25 years in prison was tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment. Before giving their support for abolishing capital punishment, they argued that we needed to provide inmates with the incentive that if they behaved properly while in prison, they could apply for a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. Legislators at the time referred to it as the ``faint hope clause''.
I think the intent of Parliament was fairly clear, especially in view of the fact that it was referred to as the faint hope clause. In my view, they didn't expect that the success rate for applicants or inmates would be as high as it is. They did not expect, I believe, that the going rate for first-degree murder would be closer to 15 years than to 25 years in prison.
The particular section is appended to my notes here as appendix A, and it's fairly straightforward. At this point I won't go through the provisions of section 745.
The section guarantees - and I underscore that word - all convicted murderers serving life sentences with parole ineligibility greater than 15 years an opportunity to reduce their parole ineligibility after serving only 15 years. They have that right. Paul Bernardo will have the right in twelve and a half years. Clifford Olson will have that right in August of next year. They have the right to apply. They have a right to a hearing. They have a right to drag the families of the victims through the system again. That's the way in which the provision was drafted.
This obscure and recently untried legal loophole was part of the deal to garner support to abolish the death penalty. It was a tactic, a political compromise, struck at a time when the country was preoccupied with the debate over capital punishment rather than the appropriate number of years of incarceration for murder.
Eighteen years later, we are beginning to realize the impact of that compromise. Until recently, many Canadians, including those who administer the law - judges, crown attorneys, and defence lawyers - were unfamiliar with, and in many cases unaware of, section 745. When I took criminal procedure and criminal law in law school, Mr. Chairman - I'm sure you and other lawyers on this committee would agree - I don't imagine that section 745 was studied at all. I don't recall ever looking at that section or being -
The Chair: I don't think it existed when I went to law school.
Mr. Nunziata: You're dating yourself.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Nunziata: I'm sure it was there when Paddy was in law school.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I was never admitted to law school.
Mr. Nunziata: In any event, the point is that most Canadians, even those involved in the criminal justice system, were not aware of this particular provision.
Most Canadians still believe that if you're convicted of first-degree murder, the penalty is life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. We believe this because that is what the judge says, that is what the media reports, and that is what our Criminal Code stipulates. But that is not reality, and the contradiction section 745 creates within the Criminal Code of Canada is unacceptable.
I'm sure that while most of us were reviewing or looking at the news coming out of the Paul Bernardo case.... I keep citing this. I know I'm going to be taken to task for citing the Bernardo case, but the media kept reporting that this character would serve 25 years in prison without eligibility; life in prison without eligibility for parole. I don't recall any article or any newscast that said, yes, but he has the right to apply in twelve and a half years for judicial review of his parole ineligibility. That assumes, of course, he's not declared a dangerous offender; and if there was ever a reason to declare him a dangerous offender, it's section 745.
.1545
Mr. Bernardo's lawyer, Mr. Rosen, is trying to hoodwink Canadians into believing the dangerous offender application is unnecessary because he's already serving life. That's nonsense, because unless he's declared a dangerous offender he has that right.
For those who say, yes, but Bernardo is Bernardo, or Clifford Olson is Clifford Olson, all I need to remind you of is the failures of the system over the last eleven years that I've been in Parliament, whether it's the Fosty case in British Columbia, the Sweeney case, the Gingras case - all the cases where people committed serious murders and then were released. They were deemed to have been rehabilitated. And the fellow who shot up the Quebec National Assembly - who would have thought ten years ago that someone could walk into the National Assembly in Quebec City, murder people, injure people, and then be walking the streets of this community ten years later?
So those who say Bernardo and Olson will never be released...I wish I had as much faith in the criminal justice system as they do.
It has been stated that the controversy surrounding the review process is a question of conflicting policy values, denunciation of the crime, and rehabilitation of the offender. I would like to state clearly that my interest in repealing section 745 is not an effort to seek revenge or vengeance against those who have already been provided due process and received a sentence from a Canadian court of law. Had I been in Parliament in 1976, while I would not have supported the inclusion of section 745, I would also have supported the abolition of capital punishment, as I did when that issue was debated several years ago in the House.
As a lawyer, a legislator, and a long-time member of this committee, I have always believed in the need to maintain rehabilitation as a component of our sentencing and correction system, in conjunction with such other principles as deterrence and restitution, incapacitation, and denunciation. Section 745, however, has created an imbalance in the system. Rehabilitation is no longer only one component of our correctional system. It has become the key component. Other factors, not the least of which are the crime and the victim, are virtually forgotten. The scales of justice which we strive to balance have been so skewed that we now are in a situation where it is politically incorrect to suggest the justice system should in any way involve punitive action.
It's important for the committee to remember that the people who are utilizing section 745 of the code are a limited minority in the criminal justice system. They are the worst offenders, those who commit the most violent and repugnant crime in Canada: murder, planned and deliberate murder. They are people who, not in a fit of passion, not by way of accident or some other means, but in a very clear and deliberate way, have planned the murder of another human being. If we took a poll of this committee, I doubt the majority, at least, would support the guaranteed right of people like Bernardo, Legere, or Olson access to the courts to ask for a chance at early parole.
Those who favour maintaining section 745 argue that I and others are provoking the public by utilizing the most notorious and heinous murders in Canada to make our point. To those people, I suggest they talk to the families of murder victims. There are some in the audience here this afternoon. If you speak to the Pollington family, the Walker/Pelz family, or the Kaplinski family, or any of the 600-plus families who will be affected by a judicial review hearing in the next 15 years, they will tell you that although the names of the murderers who killed their loved ones may have been forgotten by the public, to them the murder of their family member is the most horrendous crime ever committed in Canada. They will never forget and their hurt will never go away.
.1550
As I indicated, I know that a number of families have contacted this committee, and I hope the family members of victims will be given the opportunity to tell you the impact of the murder on their particular family.
Between 1987, when the first judicial review hearing was conducted, and July 1995, 59 judicial hearings were completed. Of these, 46 murderers were successful in reducing their parole ineligibility. I refer you to appendix D, which shows a regional breakdown of the applications.
I should note at this point that there is a disparity in terms of how various crown counsel across the country deal with these matters. In the province of Quebec, for example, the success rate is extremely high: 24 of 27 have been successful; one was rejected and allowed to reapply; only two were denied. I have been told by people who have been monitoring the situation that the crowns' office in Quebec tends simply to monitor the application and watch the evidence go in, while in other provinces crown attorneys - and I've seen one in particular do this - vigorously oppose these applications in the public interest.
What I'm saying is that the penalty for first-degree murder changes depending on the region or province of the country in which you commit your murder. The penalty for first-degree murder could very well be different if you commit murder in Quebec as opposed to in Ontario or in Alberta.
The statistics reveal that there is currently a 78% success rate. So while our predecessors referred to it as the faint hope clause, I would submit that it is the sure bet clause; that if you are a convicted murderer, then you are likely to be successful in reducing your parole ineligibility period. The numbers speak for themselves.
Section 745 has fundamentally changed the sentence for first-degree murder in Canada. By virtue of its success rate, section 745 has made a 15-year sentence for murder a reality for a significant number of killers. I do not believe our predecessors or your predecessors on this committee ever intended this to happen. Regrettably, that is exactly what it has become.
As Associate Chief Justice Callaghan of the Ontario Supreme Court stated in 1989, the applicant in a judicial review hearing ``is seeking to set aside an otherwise valid judicial order''. This is unprecedented. I am aware of no other crime in Canada that allows the sentence to be revisited after the appeal process has been exhausted.
There are those who will argue that a life sentence never expires and that all a judicial review can do is change the location in which that sentence is served. Few Canadians accept that prison and the community are interchangeable locales when dealing with murderers. This kind of rhetoric is part of the reason why Canadians have little faith in our criminal justice system.
Is it any wonder that the process and judicial hearings to date have been plagued by problems? In practice, an application for a judicial review has become extremely flexible in both scope and content.
In deciding whether or not to reduce parole ineligibility, only two-thirds of the jury need agree, unlike in the original trial, where unanimity is required. The jury, composed of twelve individuals from the community in which the crime is committed, are extremely limited in the information provided to them. It is stipulated in the section that they may consider only the character of the applicant, his or her conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, and other matters as deemed by the judge to be relevant. The law provides little direction to the court and allows provinces to establish their own rules of procedure for judicial hearings.
.1555
This has resulted in huge disparities across Canada, as I've indicated. In some provinces, juries have been prohibited from hearing the circumstances of the crime; in others they have not. The problem of regional disparity is clear, and I believe appendix C illustrates that.
Unlike with trial proceedings, the Crown is at a dramatic disadvantage because the Correctional Service Canada personnel prepare the parole eligibility report, the key document in many judicial review hearings. These reports, which detail the applicant's behaviour while in prison, vary substantially in focus and content. The impartiality of the CSC personnel has been questioned. It has been argued that the Correctional Service Canada views judicial reviews as a measure of its own success. This has created concern that they are not always forthcoming with information, which has been a problem in several judicial hearings.
The Canadian Police Association has stated that there is evidence that CSC has in the past used the Privacy Act to suppress evidence at judicial hearings, especially if it's negative about the killer. On more than one occasion this has included information that has exposed the applicant as being involved in illegal activity within prison, including drug running and extortion.
In at least four instances, inmates applying for judicial review have maintained their innocence of the original offence. This raises the unique problem of asking a jury to judge the remorse and rehabilitation of an individual who denies guilt in the first place. I know Mr. Keyes is very familiar with a case in the Hamilton area where an individual murdered his wife and two children and still to this day maintains his innocence, still to this day will not assist the police in locating the bodies of one of the children. Yet he had the right, and he dragged the Pollington family through the courts again. Thank goodness, in that particular case the jury denied the application.
The entire process is so frustrating that it has prompted two senior crown counsels to describe the judicial review process this way:
- Applications for review of parole eligibility are time consuming...lengthy, inarticulate,
non-legal, philosophical and social in nature.... There are no words which one can articulate
which would communicate what the hearing is. There are little or no rules, or if rules, they are
foreign, there is hearsay upon hearsay, facts are questionable, the filing of documentation is
allowed, the proceedings can be lopsided and totally frustrating.
The question I believe we need to answer as legislators is very simple: what should the appropriate penalty be for first-degree murder? It's either 15 years or it's 25 years, or it's capital punishment, or it's life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. I think what Canadians want is a clear and unequivocal law instead of all this dancing and ad-libbing through the criminal justice system.
If there's anything Canadians want, I believe it's truth in sentencing. They're tired of offenders being sentenced to a period of incarceration when no one believes the offender is going to serve anywhere near that period of incarceration. I believe they'd rather have sentences reduced but inmates serving close to the full sentence.
The issue before us should not be an economic question or discussion of prison overcrowding. It is not strictly a question of remorse, rehabilitation, deterrence, restitution, or any other sentencing principle. We need to answer the question put forward by Mrs. Sharon Rosenfeldt - who is here today, by the way - whose son Daryn was one of Clifford Olson's victims, when she asks:
- A court of law sentenced the killer of my child to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for
25 years. Who then is lying to me, my family and the public?
Once we answer these questions, we need to ensure that what the Canadian public believes is the sentence for murder is in practice the sentence for murder. When we say that there is a mandatory period of incarceration, it should mean exactly that - mandatory incarceration.
I hope the committee will recognize the urgent need to deal with this issue. One hundred and thirty-six of our colleagues voted in favour of this bill at second reading. Others have come forward, including a number of cabinet ministers, and they've indicated that they will support it once it returns to the House. Thousands of Canadians have signed petitions and written to their MPs supporting this bill. National police organizations and victims' rights advocates have endorsed the bill.
The mandate they have given this committee is clear. After nineteen years in the Criminal Code and eight years in practice, it's time to take another look, and I urge you to deal with the bill expeditiously and return it to the House.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunziata.
Madame Venne, for the first round.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): First, I would like to tell you that I've just received a letter from the Canadian Bar Association saying that they are against your bill. I guess they have sent you a copy. I just received mine.
They believe that this bill should be defeated and I think that committee members should know that.
My first question will deal with parole requests that have been granted. I have here the figures as of March 31st 1994. In your appendix B, the figures are as of July 9th 1995, but since the breakdown is different, I will refer to the March 31st 1994 figures from the Library of Parliament.
These figures show that since 1976, when section 745 was implemented, 128 inmates have been allowed to file an application for judicial review. Of those 128, only 71 did and 43 were heard.
Of those 43 that were heard, 19 were granted full parole. This means 19 applicants in 20 years, that is one inmate a year.
Since these figures are reliable and inescapable, I would like you to justify your position on this.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: Thank you for the question.
First, with regard to the Canadian Bar Association, all I can say is I just received this letter, but they purport to represent 34,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers, students, and judges across Canada. As a lawyer, I wasn't consulted. They don't represent me.
I don't know whether, Mr. Chairman, you were asked by the Canadian Bar Association for your views on this bill.
The Chair: I don't think I was in at the moment when they called.
.1605
Mr. Nunziata: They've taken a position. I understand where layers are coming from. They are a special breed. They go into law school as normal Canadians; they come out brainwashed, thinking in a particular way. That's their predisposition.
With regard to the statistics, appendix B points out the numbers - this information is from the Correctional Service Canada and these are as up to date as we could get - of the 59 completed applications. That shows the cases that have been successful.
Now, not all people who are eligible apply right at the 15-year period. For example, some of you may recall the murder of a shoe-shine boy in Toronto. As I understand it, the individuals involved in that particular crime have yet to apply although they are eligible to do so.
Another appendix to your material here actually lists all of the 600 people who can apply. So not all of them apply. Some of them don't apply at the 15-year period; they might wait until the 16th or 17th year. They might not think that they've ``perfected'' their case or done what is necessary in order to convince a jury.
But by far the largest number fall in the category of those who have applied and have had their parole ineligibility reduced right down to 15 years. Some have had their parole ineligibility reduced to 16 or 17 years. But, clearly, 78% have been successful in changing that provision that says they are to serve a minimum of 25 years.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Of course section 745 of the Criminal Code does not reduce the length of a life sentence. It makes it possible to change the date on which an inmate becomes eligible for parole. That much we agree on - namely the date on which an inmate can request approval from the National Parole Board.
Mr. Nunziata, in an interview you gave the Toronto Star on June 28th of this year, you justified your position by stating, and I quote: "Everyone gets out". That's what you said in your interview with the Toronto Star. If everyone does in fact get out, I would certainly like to see your figures to back this up.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: I don't know. I don't recall what context you're taking that quote out of. Everyone who goes to prison -
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: The quotation is taken from the June 28, 1995 edition of the Toronto Star.
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: Right. The point I was making is that everyone who goes to prison -
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. With respect, whenever a witness is asked a question from a document they've prepared or a statement they've made in the paper, would it not be fair if that document or that piece of material was to be presented to the witness so they can review it and answer in a comprehensive way? We've had this kind of thing arise before, and it has bothered me. I've never raised the issue before, but I'll ask for your ruling on that.
The Chair: I would think that if the witness asks for clarification or the greater context or the presentation of this, then it could be made available - if he was unable to recall completely. But Mr. Nunziata has not requested it. If he does, then I'm sure Mrs. Venne will accommodate him.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
Mr. Nunziata: I assume the question is related to a statement I made. I would not have said that everyone who applies under section 745 gets out. That's simply not the case. I have said in the past that everyone who goes to jail eventually gets out in one way or another.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Nunziata, studies show that approximately 15% of inmates in half-way houses commit other crimes while they are under supervision. Inmates cost us $48,000 a year on average, whereas the cost of an inmate in a transition house is $9,500. Don't you find half-way houses a logical solution?
.1610
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: It depends on what problem you're seeking a solution to. I'm not addressing this issue on the basis of how much it costs to incarcerate someone. I think the issue is something beyond that. We don't base our criminal justice system on the cost of incarceration.
I simply believe it is wrong to take a human life. So I am opposed to capital punishment. But I'm also very much opposed to a sentence of 15 years for planned and deliberate murder. I believe very strongly that 25 years is an appropriate and reasonable period of time for a person to serve in prison for committing that type of offence.
If you say 15 years is now the penalty for first-degree murder, what does that say about all the other crimes - say an aggravated sexual assault? Surely the penalty can't be 15 years, because if I were a lawyer representing an accused I'd say, well, you know, Bernardo and Olson and others committed that type of crime and served only 15 years, and all my client did was brutally rape this teenager. It pushes down the penalty for every other crime in the Criminal Code. You just can't sentence someone for aggravated assault to 16 or 17 years when you're sentencing someone to 15 years for first-degree murder. It just doesn't make sense.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Nunziata, thank you for your presentation, and thank you for preparing this bill. We get some very complicated bills in front of this committee. This is the kind of bill I like. It's very simple and straightforward and easy to read. I supported your bill on second reading, and I'll support it at third reading, unless it's amended to pieces.
I think the issue here is - and you touched on it in your presentation, and particularly one of the victims' parents did, Mrs. Sharon Rosenfeldt, when she indicated the question, what is the value of a human life when someone deliberately and in a premeditated manner murders an innocent person? As a society and as a government, we decide what the penalty should be. It must be based on the value we place on a human life.
If we steal someone's property, it falls into two categories. Now it's anything below $5,000 or anything above $5,000. The penalty is based on the value of the property and the consequences and the hurt and the injury created by the offence.
So we have to ask ourselves what the value of a human life is, if we're going to look at changing the penalty imposed for taking a human life. Witnesses who have appeared before this committee on other aspects of the criminal law, when I've asked them that, have never answered the question. I don't think Mr. John Conroy, who is the chair of the imprisonment and release committee of the national criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, has indicated in his literature to us, in his plea that we not support this bill, what the value of a human life is. So when we talk about the penalty, we should first talk about what the value of a human life is as considered by the Parliament of Canada.
I would like to ask you this. Do you have any idea of the cost of a section 745 hearing?
Mr. Nunziata: From my experience - the one I was involved in, in Newmarket, took about two weeks. It was a two-week trial.
These fellows don't normally have their own means to pay for a lawyer, so you are dealing with legal aid lawyers. I'm told in most cases they hire a legal aid lawyer two years before the application. I don't know whether there's going to be any legal aid around in the future. You have the judge's time, the prosecutor's time. The Toronto Sun reported, for example, that the Kinsella trial cost $100,000. How they arrived at that, I don't know.
.1615
But you're talking about at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the taxpayers for these matters. The longer they take, the more expensive they become, and you can be darned sure that Clifford Olson is going to exercise that right and he's going to be in court for a long period of time to at least try to show to the jury that he ought to be released.
Mr. Ramsay: Would you tell the committee, from your information, what the process is when an application is denied or turned down by the jury. What is the process? When can the inmate apply again?
Mr. Nunziata: I'll read subclause (4) of the bill itself:
- Where the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the applicant's
number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, the jury
may, by order,
- (a) substitute a lesser number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole than
that then applicable; or
- (b) terminate the ineligibility for parole.
Mr. Ramsay: If the view of the professionals is that after serving 15 years a first-degree murderer is completely rehabilitated, would you have him serve further time? If so, why?
Mr. Nunziata: To me, it's not a question of rehabilitation. If you were to do a study of all those who have been convicted of first-degree murder since Confederation, I'm sure statistics would suggest that for the most part these people don't reoffend. There is an element who do, but for the most part they don't.
Also, contrary to popular belief, lifers are not the most difficult prisoners to deal with in the correctional system, in prisons. Those to whom they refer as ``deucers'', those who serve a couple of years, two years plus a day, are the most difficult, because they don't care. They don't give a darn whether they have to serve the whole two and a half years, or they're not gearing their attitude or behaviour towards parole.
So, for me, it's not a question of rehabilitation. If these people said, I'll never commit the crime again, I promise; I'm rehabilitated - A lot of these people join the Bible classes and do a lot of good in the prison. A lot of them don't.
To me, a reasonable penalty for first-degree murder should be 25 years. I think that sends out a message of how we value life as legislators, how Canadians value life, how Canadians want this issue to be dealt with.
I'd like to think that Parliament will not have to go through the capital punishment debate again. It's a very emotional debate. For those of us who have been here - I guess Russell and I were the only two who were here when it was last debated. We face the very real possibility that we'll be involved in another debate during this Parliament. Certainly I wouldn't like to see it as an election issue.
The Canadian public is clear in terms of where it stands on the issue.
To this date I've always taken the position that I'm opposed to it and I'll vote against it if the issue is brought up again in the House of Commons, but there's a growing body of opinion that says: let the people decide. The people of Canada want juries, for example, to make the decision, judges to make the decision. So be it. So at some point the people of Canada might be called upon.
I think a significant number of our colleagues would support a referendum on the issue.
So I think repealing section 745 will go a long way toward dealing with the mood in society that wants to bring back capital punishment. I think we as legislators can say that at least we tightened up the penalty for first-degree murder.
On the other hand, if we say no to Bill C-226 and we want to keep section 745 in, then God help us in terms of being out in the hustings or trying to deal with our constituents, because we'll all be out of step with the people we're supposed to represent in the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Ramsay: Then you're suggesting that this letter from the Canadian Bar Association is out of step with a majority of Canadians?
.1620
Mr. Nunziata: There's not a doubt in my mind. Poll after poll after poll shows that a fairly significant majority of Canadians support capital punishment. If they support capital punishment, then surely a greater number would support - I fall into the category of the minority as far as capital punishment is concerned but in the majority as far as the repeal of section 745 is concerned.
I think these people representing the Canadian Bar Association - Well, is it any wonder that lawyers have the reputation that they have in the community?
Mr. Ramsay: What would you suggest I do with this letter?
Mr. Nunziata: That's a leading question.
The Chair: Mrs. Barnes.
Mrs. Barnes (London West): I would like to apologize to the committee for being late today. I was with constituents from my riding.
Mr. Nunziata, I want you to outline for the committee the current section 745 and how that operates at this time.
Mr. Nunziata: I'll refer you to my bill itself. In the explanatory notes it reproduces section 745. Is it your wish for me to -
Mrs. Barnes: I just want to get on the record what the current section does.
Mr. Nunziata: Okay. Subsection 745(1) says that once you've served the 15 years - and it goes on to talk about the case of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first-degree murder, because we know that everyone who is convicted of first-degree murder is sentenced to life without parole for 25 years. Then it talks about those convicted of second-degree murder with parole ineligibility greater than 15 years. It goes on to say that they may apply.
Mrs. Barnes: They may apply. Does everybody apply? Have you checked that?
Mr. Nunziata: No, not everyone. But there are different reasons for that.
Mrs. Barnes: Then let's go on. Let's assume that not everybody who is eligible applies. In fact, there are statistics backing that up. Let's go on to the process of what happens.
Mr. Nunziata: The rules are different in every province. The chief justice of the province sets the rules of procedure, but under the act it says that once an application is received, the chief justice designates a judge of the superior court. They empanel the jury, similar to a criminal jury, to make the determination of whether the parole ineligibility should be reduced, having regard to some very specific matters. Those have been interpreted in different ways in different provinces. The law says that they have to look at the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence for which he was convicted, and such other matters as the judge deems to be relevant. Judges deem different things to be relevant. In some provinces the crime itself - Judges don't want to hear evidence -
Mrs. Barnes: You know I have limited time, Mr. Nunziata. I just want to get at the process. What's the percentage of this jury that's empanelled that has to make this decision?
Mr. Nunziata: Two-thirds.
Mrs. Barnes: When you were considering this work that you've put before us, did you look at changing the percentage at all, as in unanimous?
Mr. Nunziata: No, I didn't, because, as I indicated, I'm fundamentally opposed to this section.
Mrs. Barnes: That's fine. I just wanted to see if you had looked at that.
Mr. Nunziata: I suppose it would impact on the results of some of the cases.
Mrs. Barnes: You mentioned in your report, which I've read quickly, the victim in this process. I just want to have you point out the changes that we enacted with Bill C-45 in the past term with respect to this particular section of the code and victim impact statements.
Mr. Nunziata: As I understand it - and I'm not sure of the status of the bill, of whether it's law now or whether it has been proclaimed -
Mrs. Barnes: It's law, Mr. Nunziata.
Mr. Nunziata: - there were some changes where victims would be given the right to have their views on the record.
I'm not sure. Perhaps you could -
Mrs. Barnes: Victim impact statements are, and I just wanted to make sure we understood that at this point in time.
Mr. Nunziata: In the Bernardo case, the Mahaffy family -
Mrs. Barnes: I have a problem with something before the system right now, so with my time I'd rather not talk about an individual case but rather just get on to areas of concern.
.1625
Mr. Nunziata: The point I'm making is that victim impact statements are undefined. In one province it could mean viva voce evidence, where a family wants to give evidence in open court. In another case it might mean a written document that's read to the jury, which was the case in one of the cases I was involved in.
Mrs. Barnes: But there are victim impact statements at these hearings now, and that is a development that has affected this particular section, with full hearings, which we had last year, with all the representations. We had many committees here looking at that particular act.
I want to move on to something else. I think Canadians are genuinely concerned about violence in our society and some of these issues are very real to people. One of the things people are concerned about is random violence. We know that in Canada most of our homicides are from someone the individual knows. I mention that not because life is any less dear if it's someone you know or a stranger but because the fact is that a lot of people are dangerous only to a limited number of other people at any given time.
What I'm concerned about is the situation of the management inside our prisons, our federal penitentiaries, right now. Within the past year or so this committee has visited federal penitentiaries in the Kingston area. We've visited a number of them. We met with management. We met with the unions. We met with the inmate committees. I sat in on a meeting with lifers in one of the penitentiaries, as did some of my colleagues. One of the issues I would be concerned about is if we remove this sliver of hope, then we have created a much more difficult system of management inside our federal penitentiaries.
I'm wondering, Mr. Nunziata, if you've talked with any of the prison guards, for instance, who would be managing the security in what would become a very hopeless situation for a lot of people if this section were removed. Are you considering section 745 in some way as a management tool inside the prison to make it a safer place to be?
Mr. Nunziata: First, on the question of hopelessness, Mrs. Rosenfeldt is here. Her son was murdered. You can talk to her about hope. She'll never, ever be able to see her son again. Do you want to give hope to someone who deliberately takes a life, rapes a child and murders a child - and you want to talk about hope?
I know where you're coming from.
Mrs. Barnes: I'm talking about prison management. I know it's easy to push these buttons.
Mr. Nunziata: You've asked the question. Let me -
Mrs. Barnes: Yes, I will ask the question and leave you to answer.
Mr. Nunziata: I know you voted against the bill in principle, and I respect you for that. That's the decision you've taken. You'll simply have to reconcile that with the views of your constituents. But when you talk about hope, the hairs on the back of my neck rise, because when I look at some of the crimes -
You say they know one another. Tell me about Réal Chartrand. He murdered a police officer. Are you trying to tell me he knew this police officer he murdered, or that René Vaillancourt, who again murdered a police officer, knew that police officer? I've listed all these people who have applied.
On the question of management, as I indicated earlier, what a way to run a railroad, if you're going to release people who have committed the worst crime in the Criminal Code just because they are unmanageable in prison. If you can't control these people in prison, could you imagine what they'd be like in society? As I've indicated, lifers are the easiest to manage.
You have asked me whether I've talked to prison guards, whether I've talked to lifers. Yes, I have. As a member of this committee I have travelled the country twice. We've been in every penitentiary. I've talked to every lifers group. I've talked to a goodly number of victims, families of victims. I don't come to this issue out of left field. I come to this issue after having spent a lot of time talking to a lot of people and being concerned about the screwed-up way our criminal justice system is operating. And with the greatest of respect, the reason the system is screwed up is because of some of the thinking I'm hearing today.
Mrs. Barnes: I think what we need to consider is what the impact will be for the people who come before this empowered jury panel. What we have here is not a situation where people come before a jury and are released. This is not a parole hearing. It is a hearing to see whether or not they have the eligibility date, if they can get there. So it's just a step. What you're saying, though, is that this step should be totally eradicated.
.1630
I am proposing to you - and I'm trying to keep the emotion out of it because I know it is an emotional issue. Nothing will ever replace someone who has lost somebody. No law can do that. But we have to examine this issue from the point of view of what it will do to the management tools we do have in our prisons.
I know the Canadian police have come on side with this, but have you talked to the prison guards about your bill, Mr. Nunziata, those who are inside the penitentiaries, to hear what they have to say about it? That's a bona fide question and I'd still like an answer.
Mr. Nunziata: I'm repeating myself. I have spoken to prison guards. In fact, I spoke just a few weeks ago to a prison guard who was guarding Mr. Kinsella, an inmate who was denied through one of these applications and who decided to scale the fence.
Again, from the management point of view, there's no evidence - and if you have the evidence, please, share it with me - that lifers, those convicted of murder, are more violent or more difficult to manage within our penitentiary system.
I think what you're suggesting is that in order to at least be able to live with these people within a prison context, guards want this section in order for these prisoners to be manageable. There's no evidence that they're unmanageable. Once they're sentenced to even 15 years - To use your argument, what's the difference between 15 and 25 years when you're starting a sentence? Are you saying that because it's 15 years, somehow they'd be more manageable?
Mrs. Barnes: No.
I think my time's up. Thank you, Mr. Nunziata.
Mr. Nunziata: Thank you.
The Chair: There's no Bloc member here, so the five-minute round will go to Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm looking at this issue in terms of how it affects the prison service. It's a side issue, but I do want to look at it a little bit and discuss it a bit further.
Mr. Nunziata, you mentioned that the life servers are not a problem in prison. The point Mrs. Barnes was making is that one of the reasons for that may be the fact that they're trying to behave well so they have a chance at this eligibility for consideration for parole. It seems to me that we have to recognize that if you remove that incentive, then you are perhaps removing the situation that gives them an incentive to behave well. Maybe that's the reason they're behaving well. I don't know what it is, if that's their nature. It doesn't seem to be.
But I'm interested in trying to understand - it's part of this. In terms of those offenders who - I don't know how many there are, if it's 5%, 2%, 10%, who actually go through the justice system and the correctional system and actually undergo profound personal change. I don't know what role this kind of incentive might have in that, what role some hope might have in that, because it seems to me - I'm not even sure of this at all, but it seems to me that possibly if there's some hope in this person's mind that if they behave well they might get something down the road, then they might change their behaviour. I don't think that itself is a change, but that behavioural change, once they start behaving differently, might lead to something else. It might lead in the direction of change. Again, I'm thinking about the few who actually are rehabilitated. I believe that some people do actually change.
You're aware that I supported the bill in principle. I have strong concerns about the whole issue, but I'd like to have a better understanding perhaps from some experts in the area, psychological experts or what have you, who have studied the cases where people seem to have undergone substantial change while in prison.
.1635
Mr. Nunziata: There is no doubt that a lot of them, as I indicated earlier, will not reoffend. But in my respectful submission, whether they're likely to reoffend or not is not the issue. We're dealing with what the appropriate penalty should be for first-degree murder. Some people think it's capital punishment. I disagree.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that 25 years is not cruel and unusual punishment, that it's an appropriate penalty for first-degree murder. I agree with the Supreme Court of Canada.
So for me it's not a question of managing these inmates or whether they'll reoffend. It diminishes and demeans the value of life when you -
What makes these matters worse is this cockamamie section in the Criminal Code that allows concurrent sentences. You could be a Clifford Olson and murder eleven young children and serve the same period of time as someone who murders his wife or her husband. I hope that at some point this committee will visit that question of whether concurrent sentences ought to be the norm in Canada.
Again, there is the Paul Bernardo case. He's in the same category as others who have committed a single murder. Who knows if Paul Bernardo would reoffend? Given his track record, it's likely, but as far as I'm concerned that's not the issue.
At the very least, if you disregard everything else, you set it aside as b.s., is it fair to force families of victims - If your child was murdered, would you want to have to suffer through the initial trauma, suffer through the trauma of a trial over a period of time, suffer through the trauma of an appeal, and then 15 years later have to go through it again, with the possibility that the person could walk freely in your community as if nothing had happened?
Mr. Regan: I wouldn't want it at 15 years, or 25 for that matter - at either time.
Mr. Ramsay: In your presentation, Mr. Nunziata, you alluded to the fact that a person who's convicted is first sentenced by a judge. I'm referring not only to first-degree murders but to any violent offence. First, they're convicted by a court. They're sentenced by a judge who has heard all of the evidence and has pronounced what that judge considers to be a fair and just penalty according to all the circumstances and the evidence that have been presented before him.
The matter then can be appealed. The sentence can then be appealed to an appeal court. The appeal court reviews the sentence adjudicated by the original or sitting judge.
What's wrong with that system? Why do we need a group of people who second-guess that system, in looking at parole in general? Why is it that we have a system where we're saying that it's not good enough for the judge at the hearing level and the judges at the appeal court level to make these decisions, but we have to have people second-guessing that at some time in the future?
What's wrong with our system when we look at our parole system? It has been extended, and I think it has grown into what we're looking at today, which is section 745.
Mr. Nunziata: The question of parole is something Parliament is going to have to revisit. At some point someone decided that once you commit an offence there's some magic to one-sixth of the term, because you become eligible for day parole; there's something magic about two-thirds or one-third.
I'm of the view that parole should be abolished. There's a growing body of opinion in this country, including the defence bar - some very prominent defence lawyers, for example - that believes parole should be abolished. And there are judges. I believe that Allen Linden, of the Law Reform Commission, also supports the abolition of parole, of course with sentencing reform.
.1640
What people would like to see within the system, inmates especially, is certainty in the sentencing, truth in sentencing. They would rather be sentenced - and this is from prisoners themselves - to seven years in prison knowing they're going to serve the seven years, as opposed to being sentenced to fifteen years or twelve years knowing that they have to suck up to a parole board, that they have to manipulate the process.
It's all a con game - excuse the pun - in a lot of these hearings. I don't know if you have ever sat in on a parole hearing, but in a lot of cases it's really a joke.
Members of the parole board are human beings. They make mistakes. I'd rather have the mistake made by a jury or a judge at the outset than by someone who at the other end says that in their view the person is not a threat to society and releases the person and they reoffend.
I think ultimately that's where we will head, toward reducing sentences overall and abolishing parole as we know it. There of course would be a period when you'd serve the seven years and there would be a period of control. If you're sentenced to seven years, then you will serve seven years in jail and there's a year in which you have to serve six months or nine months in a halfway house. But that's on top of the sentence, where there is supervision afterwards, as opposed to the present situation, where the supervisory period is within the period of incarceration.
Mr. Ramsay: We heard this from inmates, as well as prison guards and so on, about fixed sentences. Of course when we met with the parole people, they were very concerned that parole should remain.
I have thought and concluded, not without good reason, that what we have is a growing criminal justice industry. I think the parole system could be part of it and that they will defend their territory strongly. So if we're going to look at this question, then we're going to have to deal with organizations such as this and people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in all of these areas and are not really interested in reforming the justice system so that its number one priority is to protect society, to create a deterrent, and to look at the rehabilitative possibilities of the offender.
Mr. Nunziata: Very briefly, all I have to cite is the legal aid so-called crisis in Ontario. Lawyers have shown there that they're incapable of managing their own affairs. Even with their insurance scheme, they've made a $60 million mistake. In the legal aid system you have lawyers who are paid $300,000 and $400,000 a year who somehow work 30 hours a day.
I tend to agree that the legal system in Canada is at the point where they've built up this whole industry, where judges wear robes and lawyers wear robes and it's all meant to protect their interests. So what's happening is that you have to be either very rich or very poor to get justice in this country. Those in the middle get screwed.
Ms Torsney: I'm very happy that this bill is before committee and that there's going to be some study of the issue. I think one of the things we can do is really get to some truth. How many myths are being perpetuated and how much lack of understanding of the system there is has been very disturbing to me.
For instance, a lot of people think section 745 will automatically let you walk out the door immediately following. In some ways, even your speech, on page 6, reinforces that mistaken idea.
I also want to put on the record with you, Mr. Nunziata, that in my power as an MP I will to do anything so we can have a system that will prevent crimes from occurring, prevent people from becoming victims. So I'm very interested in making sure that we shall do whatever we can on that side of the equation.
When someone has committed a crime, there should be an appropriate punishment. We have just done a sentencing bill that will make some very good changes to the system as well.
.1645
I would also like to put on the record that while it is very politically correct these days to bash lawyers, I think it is also really not necessary. There are some very fine lawyers in this country. I really don't think we need to get on that bandwagon either while we're in this committee.
If you have that information, I want you to put on the table the average sentence for murder before section 745 was introduced. What was the average sentence in Canada -
Mr. Nunziata: Period of incarceration?
Ms Torsney: Period of incarceration.
Mr. Nunziata: It was fifteen years.
Ms Torsney: Actually, I believe it was thirteen years, Mr. Nunziata.
Mr. Nunziata: Well, then you know the answer.
Ms Torsney: I wanted to put that on the record.
Mr. Nunziata: Then just put it on the record.
Ms Torsney: What is the average sentence for murder in England?
Mr. Nunziata: I assume you know. I don't.
To go back to your previous question, there was a period of incarceration, but we also had capital punishment on the books.
Ms Torsney: That's right.
Mr. Nunziata: So if what you're suggesting is that we revert back to that system -
Ms Torsney: No -
Mr. Nunziata: - then let's do it. At least in that situation people like Paul Bernardo would be executed.
Ms Torsney: Mr. Nunziata, my point was that before this section was introduced, the average length of sentencing was not 25 years or anything else. If you were not hanged, you were incarcerated for 13 years.
That was just a point of information for those who are studying this issue.
Mr. Nunziata: I think you're mistaken. That was not the penalty -
Ms Torsney: The average time of incarceration.
Mr. Nunziata: That's right.
Ms Torsney: On page 6 you say that:
- By virtue of its success rate, Section 745 has made a 15 year sentence for murder a reality for a
significant number of killers.
- Yet I looked at the numbers and I just don't see that. For instance, you have identified 59 cases
here, and 12 were denied access, which leaves 47 people who were granted the opportunity to
apply to a parole board for application for parole. They had their 25 years reduced to a lesser
amount. In some cases - in many cases - they had only a 20-year sentence, not a 25-year
sentence. That's important as well.
I don't see in your statistics - perhaps I'm just missing them somewhere - the number of people who were actually paroled after having their sentence reduced. Is that in here?
Mr. Nunziata: No.
Ms Torsney: What were those numbers?
Mr. Nunziata: This is the information I get from the powers that be. You see that all those decisions are blacked out. They say the public has no right to know. From the information that has been conveyed to me, not directly from the parole board, these people have privacy rights that preclude us from knowing this information.
The information I have is that once they have been granted a reduction in their parole ineligibility it is automatic. They go before a parole board. The parole board loves to have these cases before them, because all they do is rubber-stamp them. They say, well, a jury has already decided, why should we second-guess the jury; they've said they should apply. The reality is that -
This committee might have the power to get that information from the National Parole Board.
But I'm very pleased, Ms Torsney, that you've supported the bill in principle. I hope you will continue to support the bill.
Ms Torsney: I put it on the record that I will study this issue and make sure I make the right decision.
Mr. Nunziata: I'm sure you will.
Ms Torsney: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, just to put it on the record, only thirty cases have gone to the parole board, and eleven have been given full parole.
Mr. Nunziata: Then you have better access to information than I do.
The Chair: Mr. Keyes.
.1650
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): I had the privilege of seconding Bill C-226 for my colleague the member for York South - Weston, and I again want to congratulate him for his hard work in getting the bill to the committee stage of the process.
The member for York South - Weston speaks of Canadians who believe that if you're convicted of first-degree murder, then the penalty is life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. The people across this country are truly asking for judges to be able to say what they mean and then mean what they say. With section 745, Canadians feel - and this is an important input, if only to address the conversation that just took place - as if their rights are being superseded by the rights of the convicted first-degree murderer.
What's at issue here, for my constituents anyway, and for those of my constituents who have been through the whole process of having family members go through the trial and watching first-degree murderers being convicted of that crime, is not whether a sentence goes from 25 to 21 years or the statistics that are being outlined and discussed here. What is at issue here is the whole principle of what the value of a life is and what the sentence is going to be.
When we say that you are going to jail for life with no chance of parole for 25 years except for the opportunity that you have to come before a judicial review at 15 in order to succeed in getting a reduction in your parole ineligibility, that's not what we're trying to do here. It was a double compromise made by a past government 19 years ago that is just not right.
Mr. Nunziata, you said that they didn't expect the faint hope clause to be as successful for first-degree murderers as it has turned out to be. To what do you attribute that success rate?
Mr. Nunziata: The system. As crown attorneys, senior crown counsel, have pointed out, the system is flawed because you have different rules in different provinces. You have the Correctional Service Canada having a vested interest in the information it provides. Until now, you didn't have the opportunity for families of victims to come forward.
I suppose, yes, that some people might want just to ``tighten up the system''. Whether they're doing the morally right thing - They'll have to grapple with that themselves and again reconcile that with the views of their constituents.
As far as I'm concerned, the fundamental issue is what the appropriate penalty should be for first-degree murder.
Mr. Keyes: And I hope we can -
Mr. Nunziata: I hope the committee will not embark on an expedition to tinker with this bill in order to hoodwink Canadians somehow into believing that all of a sudden we've corrected a major loophole in the criminal justice system by allowing families of victims to come forward. They'd rather not come forward.
Mr. Keyes: It didn't address the issue in this particular bill, which is section 745, period. I hope this committee will deal expeditiously with the bill and that it will reach the House of Commons before it prorogues.
In conclusion, this letter from the Canadian Bar Association, in the third paragraph, says:
- The decision at a section 745 review is not about release, but only about eligibility for release.
Whether or not the offender will be granted a release is determined subsequently by the
National Parole Board.
That's just one of the issues that are problems of this particular section, 745, that can be addressed by this committee and can contribute, I hope, to its being rescinded. But maybe in the process it can be cleaned up a little bit more than what we've seen.
.1655
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: I've almost done my questions and comments on this. I don't like knocking groups or associations, but what do you do when you get this kind of a letter, out of step with the vast majority of Canadians? We have the hue and cry across the country now, the polls indicating 69% of the people of the country want a return to capital punishment, and we're wrestling with keeping a first-degree murderer in jail for 25 years? I have a real concern with whether or not these people, the bar association, in this letter are representing.... Who are they representing?
I know in our adversarial system we need people on both sides strongly representing their case. But from the point of view of creating legislation that's going to protect society better, I don't see where this kind of argument falls in the formula. I just don't see it. What I see here is a group of people protecting a vested interest.
I've seen those witnesses appear before this committee again and again. What keeps coming through to me is that they're protecting their vested interest within the criminal justice system. What we have is a growing justice industry that is devoid, I think, of focus on the primary function of a justice system, which is to protect society and to mete out a fair and just penalty for the crimes committed.
To finish off, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Nunziata not only for bringing the bill forward but for his staunch, clear, and straightforward defence of it.
I want to thank you for that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
That exhausts the list, which allows me a couple of minutes, Mr. Nunziata. I talked to you earlier, and one suggestion I had was perhaps not just dealing with section 745 but taking a look at the sentencing for first- and second-degree murder and the parole eligibility.
Mr. Nunziata, there are injustices that do occur when we have not just guidelines in sentencing but mandatory sentencing. I can give you just one example from my province of Saskatchewan. You have an individual sentenced to a mandatory sentence for murder, Mr. Latimer, with no eligibility for parole for ten years. Perhaps if a judge had discretion in that particular case he could have ordered parole eligibility in exceptional circumstances to occur after six months or a year, or two years or three years.
Likewise, at the other end of the scale, if a judge in a case involving multiple murders - let's take the example that's been used here many times - of children...maybe the judge in sentencing could have said, I sentence you to murder with no parole eligibility, and that person would then not have the right ever to apply for a reduction of the parole ineligibility. If a judge had this discretion, section 745 could be disposed of.
Do you see merit in giving some discretion to judges in exceptional circumstances at the bottom end and the top end to deal with these exceptional cases?
Mr. Nunziata: I guess it all depends on whether or not you have faith in the judiciary to deal with -
An hon. member: They are lawyers.
Mr. Nunziata: Yes, lawyers become judges....
Actually, the trend, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is moving in the other direction. Parliament, including this particular minister, in some of the initiatives he's brought forward, rather than unfettering the hands of judges...they're being fettered more and more with guidelines to sentencing. They're trying to restrict, reduce, the latitude or the flexibility of judges.
One of the reasons they do that, or he's doing that - and the trend is in that direction - is the huge disparity in sentencing across the country: identical crimes, similar facts, wacky sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other. If there was some restriction, juries could be given the authority to set the parole ineligibility period, I suppose. I'd rather have a jury decide on the parole and eligibility than the judge. Again, my view is that 25 years is an appropriate sentence for first-degree murder.
.1700
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunziata. Maybe that suggestion of a jury dealing with the parole eligibility and the exceptional circumstances....
A supplementary question, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: The jury aspect that we speak of is clear, but, as I think Mr. Nunziata can confirm, when it comes to juries, we're dealing with the original trial of the alleged murderer and the jury must come up with a unanimous decision for that person to be guilty of the offence. Yet, when it comes to thinking about this fellow or lady getting early parole, it only takes two-thirds of that jury to make the decision for ineligibility for that individual. I don't understand the logic. Does Mr. Nunziata understand that logic?
The Chair: I'm not about to try to explain it.
A supplementary for Ms Torsney and then one for Mr. Ramsay. We'll allow Mr. Nunziata the final word.
Ms Torsney: Mr. Nunziata, you mentioned several sensational cases that have happened this year, and one of them was Mr. Gingras, who killed Melanie Carpenter. Was he out on a section 745 release?
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Gingras did not murder Melanie Carpenter.
Ms Torsney: Sorry. Thank you.
Mr. Ramsay: I have just one question, Mr. Nunziata. Would you prefer that this committee hear witnesses on this bill?
Mr. Nunziata: That's up to the committee. I am very concerned about Parliament being prorogued. I will make representations to the House leaders that, at the very least, after the referendum, if there's a desire to prorogue, all private members' legislation retain the position it has by agreement so that we are not forced, all of us who have private members' bills in the system, to reintroduce them, redebate them, and bring them back to this stage. I think that would be doing a very serious disservice to the public interest, and maybe that's a message that can be sent.
The DNA bill was passed in a day.
I would hope that, if you are going to hear witnesses, you deal with it expeditiously, one or two on each side, and bring it back to the House and have it debated. I don't think Canadians want us to drag this.... It's not a complicated issue; it's a fairly straightforward issue. I think Canadians want us to show some leadership and deal with it.
I spoke to the Minister of Justice just yesterday and, to his credit, and I respect him for it, even though he disagrees with the thrust of the bill, he agrees that it should be dealt with. I think he wants it to be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. He's not asking that the committee drag it out or hope that prorogation have it die on the Order Paper.
Again, I really think that even though we may not want to, unless we deal with this bill we're going to be faced with growing public pressure for a debate on capital punishment. Having dealt with the referendum by the end of October, I'd hate to go through another year or two of dealing with capital punishment. The public out there is in an ugly mood. The public is always in favour of capital punishment, but they are unforgiving when it comes to members of Parliament who are totally out of step with what's happening in the community.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunziata.
As a matter of interest, Mr. Nunziata, one of the persons on the list that you have included who is eligible for parole now...when the judge sentenced him in Saskatoon, the judge suggested that he never be eligible for parole, but he couldn't make the order. That was Justice Hughes. I'll mention the case to you after.
Mr. Nunziata: I'm familiar with the case.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee on a very interesting topic.
Mr. Nunziata: Thank you to members of the committee.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.