Bill C-31 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

The enactment amends the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.
Among other things, the amendments
(a) provide greater access to the telewarrant process for peace officers and public officers;
(b) reform the expert evidence regime to give parties more time to prepare and respond to expert evidence;
(c) allow the provinces to authorize programs or establish criteria governing the use of agents by defendants who are individuals;
(d) authorize the fingerprinting of, photographing of or application of other identification processes to, persons who are in lawful custody for specified offences but who have not yet been charged;
(e) expand the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include bribery offences committed by Canadians outside Canada;
(f) expand the list of permitted sports under the prize fighting provisions;
(g) make minor corrections to the pari-mutuel betting provisions, delete unnecessary provisions and update the calculation of pool payouts;
(h) update the provisions on interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances;
(i) reclassify six non-violent offences as hybrid offences;
(j) create an offence of leaving the jurisdiction in contravention of an undertaking or recognizance; and
(k) delete provisions of the Criminal Code that are no longer valid, correct or clarify wording in various provisions and make minor updates to others.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is called by some as the “serious time for the most serious crime act”. The bill was given first reading in the House of Commons on June 5 and was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on June 18.

The bill would amend provisions of the Criminal Code regarding the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to apply for early parole. This is done through the elimination of the so-called faint hope clause by which those given a life sentence for murder or high treason could apply for parole after having served 15 years of their sentence.

In terms of the current law, section 745.6 of the Criminal Code is known informally as the faint hope clause because it provides offenders serving a sentence for high treason or murder with the possibility of parole after having served 15 years where the sentence has been imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for more than 15 years.

Offenders convicted of first degree murder receive life imprisonment as a minimum sentence with the earliest eligibility for parole set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed with the judge setting parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years.

Those serving a life sentence can be released from prison only if granted parole by the National Parole Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of fixed length, for example, 10 or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole, they remain subject for the rest of their lives to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a Correctional Service of Canada parole officer. Parole may be revoked and offenders may be returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole and commit a new offence.

Not all lifers are granted parole. There has been a lot of debate about this over the years and there is an assumption on the part of many that somehow it is automatic. That in fact is not true at all. Some lifers are never released on parole because the risk of their reoffending is too great. One good example is Clifford Olson who was also mentioned yesterday by some of the speakers.

During the years following its initial introduction in 1976, the faint hope provision underwent a number of amendments. I believe there are five criteria for the possible release on parole of someone serving a life sentence. They are as follows:

First, the inmate must have served at least 15 years of a sentence.

Second, an inmate who has been convicted of more than one murder where at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997, at a time when more amendments came into force, may not apply for a review of his or her parole ineligibility period.

Third, to seek a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole, the offender must apply to the chief justice of the province or territory in which his or her conviction took place. The chief justice or a superior court judge designated by the chief justice must first determine whether the applicant has shown there is a reasonable prospect that the application for review will succeed.

This assessment is based on the following criteria: the character of the applicant; the applicant's conduct while serving the sentence; the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted; any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of the hearing under this section; and any other matters the judge considers relevant to the circumstances.

At a later point I will give the statistics as to how many people actually qualify for this. Members will find that it is a very small number indeed, which is probably the way it was intended.

If the application is dismissed for lack of reasonable prospect of success, the chief justice or the judge may set a time for another application not earlier than two years after the dismissal or he or she may declare that the inmate will not be entitled to make another application.

If the chief justice or judge determines that the application has a reasonable prospect of success, a judge will be assigned to hear the matter with a jury. In determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced, the jury should consider the five criteria outlined above. The jury determination to reduce the parole ineligibility period must be unanimous. The victims of the offender's crime may provide information orally or in writing, or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate.

I merely went through all of those stages in an effort to explain to people who may be viewing today that this is not a slam dunk. The Conservative government tries to pretend that it is and perhaps some media stories might suggest this but there is a very rigorous process followed here before anything is done.

If the application is dismissed, the jury may, by a two-thirds majority, either set a time not earlier than two years after the determination when the inmate may make another application, or it may decide that the inmate may not be entitled to make any further applications. In fact, if the jury determines the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, a two-thirds majority of that jury may substitute a lesser number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole than the number then applicable. The number of years without eligibility for parole that the jury may assign could range from 15 to 24 years.

Once permission to apply for early parole has been granted, the inmate must apply to the National Parole Board to obtain parole. Whether or when the inmate is released is decided solely by the board based on a risk assessment, with the protection of the public as the foremost consideration. Board members must also be satisfied that the offender will follow specific conditions which may include restriction of movement, participation in treatment programs and prohibitions on associating with certain people, such as victims' children and convicted criminals.

The faint hope clause review then is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence, which is, of course, the way the government speakers want to make it sound and continue to suggest that is the case. I want to repeat that a faint hope clause review is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence, nor is it a parole hearing. A favourable decision by the judge and the jury simply advances the date upon which the offender will be eligible to apply for parole.

In terms of the judicial consideration of the faint hope clause, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of this review is to re-examine a judicial decision in light of changes that have occurred in the applicant's situation since the time of sentencing that might justify lessening the parole ineligibility period.

Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code gives the jury broad discretionary power to consider any matter concerning the offender's situation. The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for the exercise of this discretionary power, namely, that the jury must consider only the applicant's case and must not try the cases of other inmates who may have committed offences after being released on parole. The court has also stated that it is not the jury's role to determine if the existing system of parole is effective.

In terms of the history of the faint hope clause, in July 1976, Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment for Criminal Code offences as opposed to the death penalty for military offences which was not abolished until 1999. The Criminal Code was amended and the categories for murder were changed from capital and non-capital to first and second degree murder.

Mandatory minimum sentences for murderers were introduced. The compromise arrived at between the supporters and opponents of the death penalty was its replacement with long-term imprisonment without parole. The faint hope clause was adopted in 1976 in connection with the abolition of the death penalty.

Speaking in favour of the abolition of the death penalty and the addition of the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code was the solicitor general of the day, who we all remember, Warren Allmand, who said:

I disagree with those who argue that a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years is worse than death. A period of incarceration, with hope of parole, and with the built-in additional incentive for the inmate, and protection for the guards, of a review of that parole eligibility after 15 years is necessarily better than a sentence of death because it removes the possibility of an irreversible error of execution.

I recall the governor of Michigan who was very strong on the death penalty. This was only in the last 10 years. He did an about-face when it was discovered that a huge number of inmates serving sentences in the Michigan jails were falsely convicted. Of course, that was one of the major reasons that the death penalty was overturned back in 1976.

Thus, the faint hope clause was added to the Criminal Code in the hope that it would provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves and, therefore, afford more protection to prison guards. The provision is also said to represent Parliament’s awareness of how long other countries imprison persons convicted of murder before allowing them to apply for parole.

I have some very interesting information on that, which I will get to very soon. For example, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Scotland and Switzerland keep persons convicted of murder in prison for, on average, 15 years before they may be paroled.

Concerns were raised about the faint hope clause in the course of the debate over the abolition of capital punishment. One member of Parliament said that, before going any further with parole provisions, a total reform of the Criminal Code to include rehabilitation, help for crime victims and greater rights for police officers would need to be considered. The same member, Mr. Gauthier, said:

--[a]s long as we persist in shutting up our criminals in the schools of crime that our prisons now are... they will come out even more rebellious, and I would even say even more refined in their future actions.

The first judicial review hearing under the faint hope clause was held in 1987. As of April 13, 2009, 991 offenders were deemed eligible to apply for a judicial review. Court decisions were rendered in 174 of those cases and 144 inmates were declared eligible to apply for earlier parole. Of those, 131 were granted parole, representing over 13% of those who had been deemed eligible to apply for a review of their parole date. That is not a huge number by any stretch. However, if we were to listen to the Conservatives, we would think that the streets were teeming with people in this category.

The most recent published Correctional Service of Canada statistics concerning the fate of prisoners released on parole under the faint hope clause for April 2008 show that of the 125 offenders who had been released by that date, 95 were being actively supervised in the community, 15 had been returned to custody, 11 were deceased, 1 was unlawfully at large and 3 had been deported. These statistics also show that of a total of 22,831 offenders under Correctional Service of Canada jurisdiction at the time, 4,429 or 19.4% were serving life sentences and almost all of them for murder.

In terms of the history of imprisonment for murder in Canada, while the Criminal Code has a single definition of murder and one specification of the punishment that applies throughout Canada, the legislation pertaining to sentencing for murder has changed considerably in the course of the past 50 years.

In November 2002, Correctional Service of Canada published a study on the average time offenders sentenced for murder spent in prison. This study took into account three periods defined by the murder-related legislation that was in force. Pre-1961, persons convicted of murder were automatically sentenced to death. Between 1961 and 1976, capital and non-capital murder designations were in effect and, from 1976 to 2002, first and second-degree murder designations were in effect. So, there have been three different regimes that we have experienced over our lifetime as a country.

Before September 1, 1961, any person convicted of murder in Canada was automatically sentenced to death and the sentence carried out unless the Governor General, acting on the advice of cabinet, those of us who are old enough to remember those days remember the drama involved in each and every one of those cases, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. That is, in fact, what used to happen in the latter years. This was called the royal prerogative of mercy. Historical evidence indicates that the royal prerogative was frequently exercised and operated flexibly.

Between Confederation and 1962, the year of the last execution in Canada, the federal cabinet commuted just under half of all death sentences to life imprisonment. Decisions to execute or spare were made on a case-by-case basis, not according to formal rules of evaluation. The Governor General was not obliged to justify his or her decisions and the deliberations in cabinet were not recorded. In fact, it has been said that clemency decisions were basically a balancing act in which personal prejudices and political expediency often tipped the scales.

Meanwhile, from 1899 to 1959, the Ticket of Leave Act operated on the principle that release was an important part of the rehabilitative process. Under the terms of this act, the Governor General would grant a conditional release to any prisoner serving a term of life imprisonment. Although not applied to death sentences, conditional release later became possible for those sentences commuted to life imprisonment. On February 15, 1959, the proclamation of the Parole Act resulted in the abolition of the Ticket of Leave Act and the new act enshrined the principle of rehabilitation and created the National Parole Board.

That is the beginning of the National Parole Board with which we are all familiar.

Parole was defined as the authority granted to inmates to be at-large during their terms of imprisonment. The legislation set out the new criteria for parole. The Parole Board could release an inmate when he or she had derived the maximum benefit from imprisonment, and when the reform and rehabilitation of the inmate would be aided by parole and when release would not be an undue risk to society.

Under the Parole Act the Parole Board would, at particular times prescribed by the regulations in place, review the case of each inmate serving a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more, whether or not an application had been made or on behalf of the inmate. The inmates sentenced for murder were still eligible for release only under mechanisms such as reduced sentences, pardons and the royal prerogative of mercy.

Amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1961 formally differentiated between death and life sentences. These changes resulted in murder being divided into capital and non-capital murder. With these amendments, capital murder was defined as murder that is planned and deliberate, murder committed in the course of certain crimes of violence by the direct intervention or upon the counselling of the accused, and the murder of a police officer or a prison warden acting in the course of duty resulting in such direct intervention or counselling.

Such murder was still punishable by mandatory hanging except if the accused was under 18 years of age. All other murder referred to as non-capital was punished by life imprisonment. In addition to this amendment, in 1961 an automatic review of all capital convictions by the provincial Court of Appeal was established as well as a full right of appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. This was a review of fact or law alone since the sentence was mandatory and could be reduced only by cabinet.

As outlined above, in July 1976 Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment for Criminal Code offences. The Criminal Code was amended and the previous categories of capital and non-capital murder were replaced with first and second degree murder. Mandatory minimum sentences for murder were introduced with lengthy periods of parole ineligibility.

I am going to have to move ahead because I am not going to finish all my points, but I am sure members are going to be asking me questions so I can get some of this through.

I did promise I would deal with the issue of other countries. In 1999 an international comparison of the average time served in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder showed the average time served in Canada of 28.4 years was actually greater than in all countries surveyed including the United States. The countries we looked at were New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, Belgium, Australia, and Canada had a higher rate than they did.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his history lesson with regard to punishment for those convicted of murder in this country. I listened to him very carefully and the one group he omitted to mention in his chronology was victims and, more appropriately, the families of victims.

My specific question for the member opposite is this. What does he say to the families of victims who come before the justice committee in support of this bill to abolish the faint hope clause, when they maintain that every time the perpetrator of the death of their loved one makes a faint hope clause application and they are re-victimized for a second and third time? What does he say to the families of those victims?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for some reason the Conservatives think they have a monopoly on compassion for victims. I have said on many occasions that, in fact, it was the Manitoba government under the NDP that made big improvements to victims' rights in Manitoba and to this day are making improvements to victims' rights.

I can say what Conservatives do. They look at crime in terms of how much good publicity and advertising they can get and what it will do for their polling numbers. Basically, every day to them in the House is just another opportunity to gather information for their television ads for the next election campaign, so they can turn around and misrepresent the positions of opposition members.

We saw what they did on the gun bill. They sent ten percenters into members' ridings that were actually on their side and misrepresented their voting record. We take no lessons from members opposite about sympathy for victims of these crimes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to my question, but first I would like to say a few words.

Personally, I do not think the Conservatives are in a position to say that Bill C-36 takes care of victims at this time. The existing faint hope clause takes care of victims a lot better than Bill C-36 seems to. Indeed, very few people have had access to the faint hope clause or will have access to it. The Conservatives are in no position to say that we do not care about victims. I will probably have the opportunity to come back to this later today.

In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have not received all relevant information regarding the abolition of the death penality in several countries. I would very much like my hon. colleague to finish his speech—albeit quickly—concerning Canada's position on the death penalty with respect to other countries.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Bloc member's speech yesterday. It was very well thought out and well presented.

Certainly, the government has a history of holding back information, which I am sure it has done in this case, as well.

Just two weeks ago, during the gun registry debate, the government sat on a report which basically gave a very positive view of the gun legislation. It sat on that report for probably two months.

I voted with the member for Portage—Lisgar regarding that bill and the information in that report probably would not have changed my mind even though it was, on balance, sympathetic to the gun registry. However, the fact of the matter is that the government sat on that report for two months. I believe our justice critic had told me yesterday that it was about two months that the government sat on this report, knowing there was a vote coming in the House. It sat on this report until practically the day after the vote was over. That is suppressing information that rightly belongs to the members of this House. That report should have been given out two months in advance.

By the way, it would not have changed my vote. I would have still voted for the member for Portage—Lisgar's motion at the end anyway. However, the government sat on that report when it should not have.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time in this House that we had a discussion that was similar to this was on a motion that came from the Liberals, asking the government not to return to the death penalty. I made an intervention that day that led me to a circumstance where I was at a gathering in Toronto for the wrongfully convicted and got to shake Steven Truscott's hand and meet five other individuals who were wrongfully convicted in Canada.

We in this party, as well as I believe every member in this House, certainly have grave concerns for the well-being of the families involved when a murder or a serious crime is committed against them. On the other side, we have what happens to the people who are, unfortunately, put into the position of being imprisoned when they are innocent.

In my previous life before coming here, I was involved in the labour movement and spoke to many Ontario OPSEU guards who told me that the faint hope clause keeps them alive.

What are the member for Elmwood—Transcona's views about what the prison guards themselves have to say regarding the faint hope clause?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that there is support there. Certainly, there is in all the studies and so on that have been on the faint hope clause. There are other countries in Europe, for example Belgium, that have a similar type of legislation. There is some argument to be made that if there is that very slight chance that a person might get out because of good behaviour after a long period of years, it gives that little glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for prisoners to behave.

If we take all hope and give no hope for people to be released, then we potentially have a very unstable situation in our midst. We have all seen what has happened in the United States when there have been prison riots. People get killed and huge amounts of damage occur. It is not a pretty sight.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification, the member for Elmwood—Transcona should know that if Bill C-36 were to pass, those incarcerated would not be locked up without any possibility of parole. They would just be precluded from applying for early parole, like in the 16th year, but would need to wait for 25 years before they apply. However, the member said that he would not take any lessons from us with respect to victims' rights, so I will give him another opportunity. If the Manitoba government was so keen on victims' rights when he was a part of it, what will he say to the families of victims when he votes no to Bill C-36?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in Manitoba under the Conservatives there were no victims' rights. People's houses would be broken into and they would try to find out the disposition of the case, but they could get no information as to who did it, when the person was going to jail or what the disposition was.

It was the NDP that stepped in and changed those rules over the years so that the victims would have information as to the disposition of their cases, plus counselling. Counselling was set up for the victims, which was very important. That never existed under the grand old Tory years of the past. This is something that the NDP did.

The Conservatives should be paying more attention to the NDP in certain provinces. They should do what works, not just what is good for their coverage on the six o'clock news.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to follow two routes in my speech. One is the bill itself and the other one is the procedures that have been followed in getting the bill before the House.

This is not a trivial issue. We are talking about murderers, people who have been convicted of first degree premeditated murder. There is no one in the House who does not understand that.

We also know that this has been an ongoing debate. In the speech by our colleague from Manitoba we heard some of the history that has led us to the process that is followed in our courts today. It involves the debate around the death penalty and the debate about dealing more appropriately with the families of murder victims than we have done historically and how we best protect our society from future murders, from future violence by removing individuals from society.

That debate inevitably, and I say inevitably because it is true in every democracy that I have looked at, leads us to what is the appropriate period of incarceration in order to achieve the goals of public safety, protection of the public, protection of victims' rights. How do we best achieve that? That is what this debate is about. It is what Bill C-36 and its predecessors is all about.

We often hear government members in the House and in public raise fears in the families of victims, which I think is to their eternal shame in many respects, as opposed to dealing with the facts. We then get to the process that we went through in getting the bill back to the House for third reading.

I want to make this point. There were two types of evidence that came before the justice committee. One was anecdotal, based on perceptions and emotion in many cases. That was the preponderance of what came before committee, anecdotal evidence. There was a little bit of factual evidence. I cannot help but conclude that this process with this bill in particular is faulty. It is faulty more so than with any other crime bill that has come before the House by the current administration since 2006.

The minister appeared before the committee. He was asked a number of questions about how the system works and he was not able to give us factual information. Those are his own words. I am not reading anything into it.

We were told by the minister and his officials from the justice department that the information we were seeking of how the system really works resided with the Department of Public Safety, and specifically within the corrections division of that department.

I had checked to see if Statistics Canada's Juristat had the factual information as to how these sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the faint hope clause worked. It did not gather that information. It also advised me and other members of the committee that it all resided in corrections.

We needed a number of pieces of information. One of the more pertinent pieces of information that the government should have had, given the Conservative Party's long-standing claim of being the champion of victims rights, was how many family members of victims actually used the process. I can say unequivocally today that that information never came before the committee.

With all the research that I have done, with all the enquires that I and other members of committee have made, I can say that information does not exist. We received anecdotal analysis, but in terms of public policy, there was no factual evidence.

We do not know exactly how many applications are made. We do not know factually how many applications are made on the first opportunity, that is, at the 15 year mark of incarceration. We do not know how many applications are made at the 17 year mark, the 19 year mark, or the 20 year mark. We do not know, for instance, at what age people are released under this process. I could go down the list.

We do not have all sorts of information on recidivism, the small number of people who are released and commit another crime and are incarcerated again. And they may not have committed another crime, but they may have breached the terms of parole, which are very stringent.

We do not have any specific answers to that list of items.

In spite of that, the government is going ahead with this bill based entirely on anecdotal evidence at best and almost exclusively on the, and I hate using the word “demagoguery“, but it is accurate, of their speeches as the Conservative Party, as the Alliance Party and as the Reform Party. None of this is based on fact.

A report in 1999 gave us some of the factual answers to the list of items I just enumerated. That information is now 10 years out of date. We know from some of the evidence that things have changed. There have been other amendments. There has been some tightening up of the process by the judiciary and by the Parole Board. We know it has changed somewhat but we do not know how much it has changed in this 10 year period. No additional work has been done. No additional work was done by the prior Liberal administration up to 2006, and the Conservative government has not brought that information up to date.

I will come back later in my speech to how flawed the process was in getting us here. I want to make one other point on something that I find really offensive with this legislation.

When we look behind the government's agenda, we find that this is really about an ongoing attack on our judiciary. In this case, it is also an attack on the jury system. It undermines the credibility of both of these institutions that have stood us in good stead in this country and in the Westminster style of democracy for hundreds of years. Is it perfect? I will be the first one to say that from my years of experience in the courts that it is not perfect, but it is a very solid system. It is a system that is deserving of the respect of the legislators of this chamber. This bill seriously undermines our system.

Under the present system an incarcerated individual convicted of first degree murder has to wait 15 years before he or she can apply to be considered whether he or she can apply for parole. The individual is not applying for parole but is just applying for permission to apply for parole. A judge in the area where the murder was committed has to screen whether or not that individual has a reasonable possibility of convincing a jury that he or she should be allowed to apply for parole.

With this bill, we would be undermining that and taking it away. First of all, we would be making it harder because the test for the screening process will be tougher and, of course, ultimately it will do away with the screening process completely because it will do away with the faint hope clause.

That is bad enough, but we also go right at the jury system and say to the jury in the bill, “We do not trust you, the jury,” the 12 men and women picked from the area or community where the murder was committed. We do not trust the jury to look at the facts and the individual who is applying and to make a determination based on all of the facts whether the person has rehabilitated himself or herself, although it is almost always himself, to the point where we believe that person should be allowed to apply for parole. We do not trust the jury to make that decision any more. We are taking it away from the jury.

That is what the bill would do. It is a serious undermining of the jury system to which every legislator in this House should be paying very clear and solid respect. It would strip both the judge and the jury of that responsibility. It is shameful that we would pass a bill like this.

Following my own and the Bloc's representations on the justice committee, we had arranged for the head of the Correctional Service of Canada to appear before the committee, because we were told by Juristat and the office of the Minister of Justice that correctional service staff were the only ones who could answer factually some of the questions we had raised.

We arranged for Mr. Don Head to appear before the committee. He came before the committee without anything prepared and took questions, including a series of questions from me and the member from the Bloc. In the course of that questioning, it became clear that the information was not compiled in any way. For instance, he could not tell us how many victims' families had asked to make a victim's statement and he could not tell us the specifics of the recidivism rate. He only had generalities that he could talk a bit about to us. He could not tell us at what ages most people were convicted and most individuals got out of prison.

We could go down the list. There were at least a half dozen very specific points that he confirmed the Correctional Service of Canada could give us answers on. He said to me and the member from the Bloc and the chair of the committee that the information could and would be available by the time we got to clause by clause consideration of the bill, scheduled for November 16. Mr. Head appeared before the committee on November 4. It was very clear that he could do it in that period of time.

The week of November 9 was a break week for the House to commemorate Remembrance Day in our ridings, but we were back on November 16. I asked where the information from the Correctional Service of Canada was so that we could do clause by clause in a meaningful way. I was told it had been sent to our offices.

I have subsequently learned that other members of the committee, both from the Bloc and the Liberal Party, with similar questions about where it was were told the same thing. We all jumped to the conclusion that somehow we had missed that information in our offices, and so we went ahead with clause by clause. The bill went through committee stage and, of course, it is now back in the House for report stage and third reading.

After November 16, I again told the clerk that I did not have the information in my office and asked if it could be sent to my office again. Yesterday morning when I arrived at my office, it was not there. We called again at that point and were advised that in fact it had never been sent either to my office or to anyone on the committee, because it had been sent to the office of the Minister of Public Safety and that it had at least been there by November 16.

That information was never provided to the committee. The committee went ahead with clause by clause without all of that factual information, which was our only source of such information.

Yesterday, I was advised by the Conservative deputy House leader that in fact the minister had that information on his desk and had not seen or approved it. I have to say as a sidebar that he has no right to approve it; this is not a situation where he gets to vet that information. If committees are going to work in the House, they must have access to information without it being censored, deleted or affected in any other way by the decisions of the political masters in our legislature.

I still do not have the information. I had wanted it yesterday, as I had expected to speak on this bill then and to use some of data to try to convince the House to vote against this bill. I still do not have it. I was advised by the Conservative deputy House leader yesterday that I might get it in another week.

We know that if that happens, this bill is going to come to a vote before we ever get the information, and I am certainly not going to be able to use it today in my arguments for why we should defeat this bill. The minister should not have done that.

I want to be very clear after having gone through the blues extensively. When Mr. Head was before the committee, he committed to the member for the Bloc and to me that he would have that information for us by the time we got to clause by clause on November 16.

I pushed him about it again just as he was leaving his seat at committee and the Conservative chair of the committee received a commitment from him that it would be back to the committee, not to the minister. There was no discussion of any of this going to the minister, nor should there be. He said it would be back to the committee by November 16. The blues show that.

Something has to happen, as we cannot allow this to continue. Therefore, I move that:

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 with a view to making any amendments which may be called for as a result of information undertaken to be placed before the Committee by departmental officials on November 4th, but which the office of the Minister of Public Safety failed to provide before the Committee considered the Bill at clause-by-clause.

Just to conclude, we cannot—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member has moved an amendment. That concludes his speaking time. The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments on Bill C-36, which is eliminating the faint hope clause.

He referred to this legislation as shameful, but I would suggest that what is shameful is this member and his party's opposition to a bill that will eliminate something that has caused great grief to victims across this country.

The faint hope clause provides convicted first and second degree murderers an opportunity to apply to be released well before their statutory parole dates come due. Victims have been asking that we eliminate this, because it revictimizes them as frequently as every two years after the 15th year of incarceration.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask for your direction. I understood that we were debating the motion to refer the bill back to the committee, not the merits of Bill C-36.

The motion to refer the bill is really a procedural motion, based on the NDP alleging that the minister failed to provide information pertinent to the committee doing its work. It has nothing to do with the merits of the faint hope clause.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for Winnipeg Centre is technically correct. We are now discussing the amendment.

Nonetheless, this is time for questions and comments and the hon. member for Abbotsford has latitude in what he would like to say during his time, of which there are about 10 seconds left.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that what is shameful is the NDP's unwillingness to support legislation that would eliminate the revictimization of victims of crime in this country.

Why does his party not listen to victims but instead focuses all of its efforts on listening to the incarcerated? It is time for a rebalancing of interests here and that we start to listen to the pleas and cries of victims in this country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is so typical of his party's position.

Number one, the Conservatives have no idea how many victims actually go through this process. They do not.

There is another thing that they always ignore when it comes to victims. In fact, we had a really interesting process at committee. There were two family members of murder victims before the committee. Both of the witnesses, by the way, were arranged by the Conservatives, and one was very strong in support of this legislation. The second man who came forward had lost his daughter to a murder, and just a week or two before appearing at committee, he had been on a panel with one of the individuals who had been released under the faint hope clause. He came to us and was honest. He said that after his experience on the panel with that individual, he was now of the opinion that there are times when the faint hope clause should be in place.

That was one of the families of the victims and there are a lot more like them, because the Conservatives ignore the reality of the dynamics of murder in this country and the world. Eighty per cent of the murders in this country are committed by people who know each other; the murderer knows the victim. It also means that in a lot of these cases, the family members of the murder victim know the perpetrator.

There are a number of cases that we know of--and again, it is anecdotal how many there are—where the families in fact want the individual to be released after 15 years because the latter has rehabilitated himself or herself.

That is where the victims are in this country. They are not simply the stereotype the Conservatives want to portray to the country and to use in photo ops—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has moved a motion that basically recommits the bill back to committee for the latter's consideration of corrections or amendments to specific clauses.

I was astounded by the reasons the member gave for moving this motion. The story is absolutely extraordinary. It is unacceptable and almost contemptuous of Parliament and committees.

I would ask the member if he would simply recap the specific information he was looking for before clause by clause was undertaken, and why it was important for those matters to come forward before the committee made its determination on amendments.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to do that from the vantage point of both what I saw and what my colleague from the Bloc saw. We were trying to answers on how often and how many times it was used on the very first occasion. The anecdotal evidence said that it was not very often at all.

How often was it granted on the first application? According to our best information, which is again very sorely lacking, it was rarely ever granted, but we did not have a factual answer to that. We wanted to know at what age people would get out and at what age they went in. That information was to be available.

In particular, we wanted to have information about recidivism. Of those individuals who did get out, how many applied and how many got out? We knew they were very large numbers, and I feel like I am in a court, but the best estimate was it was less than 25% of whoever applied for the first 25 years. The average person who committed murder in our country stayed in custody for 28.5 years. We were able to get that information, but it was probably out of date because it was from the 1999 study. Therefore, we wanted that statistic brought up to date.

However, on recidivism, we wanted to know how many were re-incarcerated and what happened to them. There were very little specifics, but our best determination was only one potentially violent crime was committed. We did not have that kind of detail, but we wanted it. The corrections division had it, but we never received it.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who does extraordinary work at the committee and who raised this point. We need this information. Obviously, the Bloc will support this amendment.

I dare not say that those who have the information forgot to send it to us, I would say something else, but I will refrain because it might not seem very parliamentary.

How could that information, which someone may have deliberately forgotten to forward to us, change the support certain political parties or members of certain political parties might have for this bill?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue knows, it is really the Liberals' opinion of this bill that we are trying to change. What is more, in the information we believe we will receive, there is almost nothing about those who were authorized by the judge and jury to apply for parole in order to be released from prison before 25 years.

This is directed to the Liberals. I think they have enough integrity to review this information, to change their minds and perhaps support our position and vote against this bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer by profession, but I am a member of Parliament and most members of Parliament are not lawyers. They rely very heavily on the training and back ground of those who are legally trained to inform us, to advise us of the facts and to give us a foundation in which we can make an informed decision as to how we may address certain matters of a legal nature.

We are debating a bill, the subject matter of which has come up a number of times in private members' bills, particularly since I have been here. Since 1993, I think it has been raised at least four times. It is a matter that has always raised an argument that borders on emotional response rather than substantive response based on fact.

There is no doubt in my mind that unless one has been there, one does not know what it is like to lose a loved one in a violent crime. There is probably very little that can be done to change the memory, the pain and the suffering of the families and close friends of victims of violent crime, of murder.

While I was not totally aware of the amendment that was moved but I understand better now why it was, but one of the things I did to prepare myself for today was to look back at some of the old debate and some of the history as well as what others had said, particularly at committee, at whom we would tend to maybe look.

I saw, for instance, the Elizabeth Fry Society. One of the questions I had asked it, and I raised the question before, was the fact that all cases were not the same. I know the example of Clifford Olson has been raised many times in this place on this argument. I believe Clifford Olson actually is eligible to apply for parole, and I believe he has applied. I do not know the details in terms of whether he was declared a dangerous offender, but I think it was overturned.

It does not matter. In terms of debate in this place and trying to influence the public's impressions about what is going on here, Clifford Olson is probably a very good example to use if we are in favour of getting rid of the faint hope clause so no one like him ever gets out of jail, period, or any same or similar serial killer.

I do not think serial killers can apply under the faint hope clause, but there is some judgment. I will yield to whomever raised it in debate yesterday. Is it possible that It may very well have been misinformation? That is why I have raised it because there is no possibility that Clifford Olson will get out under the faint hope clause.

I asked people what they thought about it. I asked some of my constituents about this as well. The matter was dealt with last June at second reading and then it went to committee. On November 16, it finished at committee and was reported to the House on November 18, and here we are immediately. This is another switch the channel week where we go to justice bills. Here we are on C-36.

When I asked some of the constituents, they were not very familiar with the faint hope clause. In fact, they were not very familiar with a life sentence. I have the feeling that the majority of Canadians do not understand sentencing, parole, faint hope, conditional sentencing and house arrest. Many terms are floated around and people have busy lives.

However, when we get around to things like capital punishment or in this case, the faint hope clause, everyone has an opinion, but that opinion is based on whatever knowledge they happen to have and whatever interpretation they happen to be given.

When people commit serious crimes and are sentenced to life, that is a life sentence for the rest of their lives. However, there is a proviso that after 25 years, they can apply for parole. As the previous speaker said, for those persons who are convicted of murder, the average sentence served is 28.5 years, I believe. Ostensibly it means a lot of people are in there a lot longer than 25 years. Some people in fact do get out at 25 years, so there must be quite a range depending on who it is.

After 25 years, offenders are automatically eligible to apply for parole. In Bill C-36 we are talking about faint hope clause, which says that after 15 years there is a process that they can go through in which they can apply for early parole, but it will be a very stringent process.

Yesterday in debate I thought the member for Halifax had a very tight description, and I want to share it with the House, about the process of the faint hope clause, which is important to understand. She is a lawyer and says that the amendment to the Criminal Code, as recommended by Bill C-36, is for the most serious crimes. It would amend provisions with regard to the rights of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole, She identified it colloquially as the faint hope clause.

She said that it provided offenders with the possibility of obtaining parole after 15 years of a sentence for murder where the sentence was life without eligibility for parole for more than 15 years. She went on to say that offenders convicted of first degree murder served life as a minimum sentence, with the first parole eligibility set at 25 years, which is what I indicated. For offenders convicted of second degree murder or a mandatory sentence of life is also imposed, but the judge can set parole eligibility at any point between 10 and 25 years. That may involve murder. Those who are serving a life sentence can be released from prison if the parole is granted by the Parole Board.

Inmates that are granted parole will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of a parole and supervision of a Correctional Service parole officer, et cetera. There are conditions of being on parole. Break parole and they can be right back in jail and then they have to serve their time.

There was no disagreement with the description of the process that someone had to go through under the faint hope clause to get parole and to be considered after 15 years. The process is so rigorous that very few people apply at 15 years. There is clearly an assessment of whether they have been rehabilitated, or have been model prisoners, or there were victim impact issues, or there were other exasperating circumstances. There are many considerations. It is a complicated, very rigorous process that goes on with regard to giving consideration.

Therefore, it surprised me to hear the debate. One could see that the proponents of Bill C-36 wanted to eliminate this opportunity for early consideration of parole at 15 years from the automatic 25 years because of the victims. They want to deal with victims and forget about who did the crime. We have heard this a lot. If one does the crime, one does the time.

Everybody in Canada should know that, based on the statistics, someone who commits murder in our country is eventually going to be back on the streets. That is the reason why we have a system that provides for rehabilitation and early release under parole programs of inmates if things have gone well, if they understand, if they have been repentant of their crime, and if all of those goods things that everybody would expect make this a problem that should not and probably would not recur.

As the previous speaker said, 80% of these severe and most serious of crimes such as murder are committed by persons who know the person they kill. As a matter of fact, a large proportion of those are family members killing other family members and close friends killing close friends. These are people that they know. These are not drug pushers who are out there with guns, shooting people, stealing and robbing banks and things like that. Of these criminals, 80% are people who knew their victim.

I do not think that most Canadians would suggest that these 80% would be the kinds of persons that would go and commit a second murder. It is possible, but is it probable? There is an argument about some cases where people are going to prison for life and they are going to be there for at least 25 years before they get the first chance to even consider getting out. It may even be longer than that and that is the way it is going to be. All the faint hope clause does is say that there are some circumstances in which having the eligibility for parole after 15 years may be reasonable, may not be a risk to society, and may be in the public interest.

What about the victims? The victims have a say in the process. The courts and judges have a say. It has to be unanimous. I will not go through the process because, quite frankly, I do not know it in all the glorious detail. However, it is an extremely onerous process to go through to be able to convince the judges that a person would merit consideration for early parole. It is not Clifford Olson. It is not going to happen.

I got here and heard the motion of recommital to committee of Bill C-36 and to reconsider or amend clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The member who made the motion to recommit has advised the House that information was requested with regard to statistics and other related information about how often the faint hope clause was used, how many people applied for early parole on their first opportunity at 15 years, how many were granted parole on their first attempt, the age at which they got out, and on recidivism rates, which is a very significant issue to handle when dealing with matters of parole. While debating other bills, we heard that people under conditional sentencing or house arrest were less likely to reoffend than people who had to serve the entire sentence in jail and crime school.

We have that evidence, so it does not surprise me that this particular member asked for that information and the other parties concurred that this is information we should have. Tell us what is happening. How often has it happened? How successful has it been? Have there been problems? What has the victim reaction been?

I read one of the cases the Elizabeth Fry Society provided when it appeared before the committee. A severely abused woman killed her husband and refused to apply for the faint hope clause because it was her children who would have to attend the process and she did not want her children to be exposed to it. She would rather stay in jail and serve all of her time because she loved and cared for her children.

There are a number of cases. There was another one I will refer to. The last figures obtained, and no, I will not go there because it is a little too long. However, suffice it to say, I will refer members to the testimony of the Elizabeth Fry Society, which has been following this since it became a periodic matter before the House.

We second, as the full chamber, to our committees the mandate under the Standing Orders to do this work. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has been bombarded with a series of bills, which should not have been the case if the government had used the omnibus bill approach to many of these bills, so that the committee would not be tied up so long and the same witnesses would not have to return.

The government has used this as a tactic. It has used it as a tactic to basically clog up the committee so bills would not go through very quickly, which means it could continue to talk about the same things over and over again. It could do a prorogation, go into a new session of Parliament, reintroduce the bills in a slightly different form and not take advantage of the work that has been done.

This particular case almost requires an investigation, I would say, simply from the standpoint that the committee asked for information which, on its face, is very relevant to the consideration of the bill before us.

Now the committee has reported this bill back with some amendments. However, how many amendments may have taken place at the committee stage or how many report stage motions would have been put forward based on the new information the committee could have received, and how is it possible that communications could be so fouled up that members who asked for information, and were told was accessible did not get the information they asked for?

Members of Parliament have rights. Those rights have been violated. That is fundamentally the reason why the member had to move the amendment. He and the committee could not do the job in the best fashion they wanted to because the information asked for was being denied to the member, directly or indirectly.

That is worse than most things that happen in this place. It is a breach of the member's rights, the committee's rights, and all of us collectively because we seconded, through the Standing Orders, the responsibility to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to look at these justice bills. Why does it take a member having to rise in this place and say he has no choice but to revert this bill back to committee?

I am not even sure that is going to resolve the breach of the member's rights. I am also not sure whether there should be a motion that there be a full investigation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or some other ad hoc committee to find out what happened in this case. It is outrageous and I congratulate the member for raising it with all hon. members.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South has been in the chamber considerably longer than I have and I know he chairs a committee. Does he not believe that the more proper course of conduct for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh would have been to raise it at clause-by-clause study? If the member for Windsor—Tecumseh somehow felt prejudiced by the lack of information he alleges he was promised, should he not have raised it at clause-by-clause and ask that it be adjourned until that information was available rather than raising it today at third reading?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has spoken for himself on this matter. The information was requested. The member was assured it was being transmitted and he took the word of those who were transmitting it to him. But it also appears that there is an allegation here with which he probably was not aware of, and that is that a minister of the Crown had the information and did not pass it on to the members. That is new information and that makes it even more critical that the matter be dealt with. Those are the issues.

Could he have mitigated it? The other committee members knew they were dealing with Bill C-36, a bill to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate the faint hope clause, not an inconsequential bill. Maybe the member should ask, why did the committee as a whole not say it would not move forward with clause-by-clause or complete its consideration until it received basic information that clearly was essential to the consideration of Bill C-36?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague and I appreciate what he said, but I have a question for him.

The hon. member for Windsor West and I made a request, but we have not received a response. That is why we are voting in favour of the amendment.

Let us assume that the responses will say something like this: that there was very little recidivism; and criminals who were released under very strict conditions in accordance with the faint hope clause did not reoffend, or not very often. I will probably have a chance to come back to that in the next few minutes.

How is it that the Liberal Party, which supported the faint hope clause, is about to vote in favour of a bill that will eliminate an inmate's faint hope of rehabilitating himself?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a bit premature. The matter here is not about what people would obviously conclude if asked how many people actually get through this process. We know it is a rigorous process and very few people get through it. If anybody read the specific cases involving those who do get out, they would clearly understand why there was a propriety for someone to get early parole under the faint hope clause.

There is one issue that has come out and it is an issue that the member will have to acknowledge. The bill has come back from committee and members were giving speeches at third reading before the motion was made. One side is saying that this is all about victims and about Clifford Olson. The other side is at least providing more focused information.

If those statistics had been available, the quality of questions would have changed. Maybe the quality of the commentary coming from certain members in favour of Bill C-36 would have changed. That information was not on the record specifically and from an authoritative source.

That is missing. That is why the motion to revert to committee is appropriate. That is why maybe a breach of members' rights has been committed.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and his support for my colleague's motion.

The issue is whether or not this attempt to get this information may in fact at the end of the day cause the Liberals to reconsider their position on this bill. Yesterday, the Liberal critic rose in her seat and addressed the bill. Someone indicated yesterday that she had voted against the bill at committee, but that the Liberal Party would in fact be supporting the bill.

I am just wondering whether, in the member's opinion, this new information may be enough to cause Liberal members to change their minds on this particular bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to speculate about what might happen. We have a situation here where the information requested by members was not provided to the committee.

I do not know how this has influenced people's impression but I do know that sometimes simple slogans, simple phrases can sway people. I have been a member of Parliament since 1993 and I believe we have addressed this. I also know that every time it has come up I have voted in favour of retaining the faint hope clause. I have no reason to believe that I should not continue to support the faint hope clause in those rare circumstances where the judges and other stakeholders believe it is appropriate.

That does not seem to have been given the scrutiny during second reading debate or third reading debate. It probably had a better debate at committee, but something happened where someone decided that fundamental information could be withheld or deferred, maybe deliberately. Why? We need to know the answer to these questions: Who is responsible? Why? Would it affect members' impressions and decisions on whether or not they will support Bill C-36?

I think it is possible that this series of events may cause some reconsideration. I would ask the member to let us see how this plays out but I very much believe that members of this place have not been well served by not getting the kind of information that we really need.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak against the motion that was proposed by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

As I indicated in my last question for the member for Mississauga South, I believe it is important, if not fundamental, to note that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is really raising a question of privilege, which is what he tried to raise in committee yesterday. Members will, undoubtedly, be aware that there is a principle of parliamentary law that when issues of privilege are raised they ought to and need to be raised at the first available opportunity. I would suggest that that window has lapsed.

If the member for Windsor—Tecumseh were concerned about this lack of information that he had requested and, allegedly, and I use that word deliberately, had been promised in a timely manner, that ought to have been raised at committee and it ought to have been raised when the bill was under clause by clause consideration.

I am a member of the justice committee and I want to state emphatically on the record that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh made no such objection when this bill was before committee for clause by clause consideration. He made no objection or attempt to adjourn the proceedings or adjourn the clause by clause consideration until this information from the Commissioner of Correctional Service was available. I would suggest that his motion is not meritorious.

Moreover, I have listened to a number of members from the party of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh indicating philosophically their opposition to Bill C-36. I am not even remotely convinced that any member of his caucus or, for that matter, any member from the Bloc Québécois, would be inclined to alter his or her vote one way or another with respect to that information. Those members have stated that they are against Bill C-36 and in favour of the faint hope clause and therefore nothing turns on this information that was allegedly promised before clause by clause.

Canadians want this legislation. My constituents who have written, emailed or called me are all in favour of Bill C-36, the serious time for more serious crime bill, which would repeal the so-called faint hope clause for those who commit murder after the date of proclamation of this act.

However, it would do more than that. It would also toughen the procedural requirements to make a faint hope application for the approximately 1,000 already convicted murderers now serving life sentences in Canadian prisons who presently have the right to apply for faint hope or will have the right to do so after serving 15 years.

I am pleased to note that after hearing from several of the witnesses at the standing committee, the committee reported Bill C-36 back to this House with a few highly technical amendments that would make the harmonization of the English and French versions of the bill more synchronized.

I want to recap some of the substantive Criminal Code amendments contained in Bill C-36 for the benefit of all hon. members so that they understand the need to have this legislation passed in a timely manner.

As most members will be aware, high treason and first and second degree murder are all punishable by life imprisonment with the right to apply for parole after a stipulated period of time.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the earliest parole eligibility for those convicted of first degree murder and high treason is 25 years. It is also 25 years for second degree murder where the murderer has been convicted of a prior first or second degree murder or an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Otherwise, the parole ineligibility period for second degree murder is automatically 10 years and can be up to 25 years as determined by a judge under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Serving up to 25 years in prison without being eligible for parole is obviously a very long time, and deliberately so, for murder and high treason are two of the most, and I would suggest the most, serious crimes in Canada's criminal law. Nonetheless, the faint hope clause regime provides a mechanism for offenders to have their parole ineligibility period reduced so they serve less time in prison before applying to the National Parole Board for parole, if their faint hope clause is successful in the first instance.

The current faint hope clause process is set out in section 745.6 and related provisions of the Criminal Code, and has three stages.

First, an offender must convince a judge from the jurisdiction in which he or she was convicted that the application has a ”reasonable prospect of success”. The courts have already told us that there is not much of a hurdle and so almost all applicants are able to go on to the next stage.

Second, and importantly, if the judge is convinced, the applicant can bring an application to a jury of 12 ordinary Canadians whose role is to decide whether to reduce the applicant's parole ineligibility period. This decision must be an unanimous one.

Third, if the applicant is successful with the jury, he or she may then apply directly to the National Parole Board. At that point, the applicant will need to convince the board that, among other things, his or her release will not pose a danger to society.

The faint hope regime has been around since 1976 and was concurrent to the abolition of capital punishment. The data indicate that between 1976 and the spring of this year there have been a total of 265 faint hope applications. That is an average of eight applications per year. Of the 256 applications 140 obtained reductions in their parole eligibility periods. Thus, 103 applicants with 25 year ineligibility periods obtained reductions of 1 to 10 years and 37 applicants whose ineligibility periods ranged from 15 and 24 years obtained reductions of 1 to 5 years.

Ultimately, the National Parole Board granted early parole to 127 applicants. In short, nearly half of the 265 faint hope applicants were ultimately granted parole before the expiry of their otherwise parole ineligibility periods imposed upon them by the court and by the judge at the time of their sentencing.

The existence of the faint hope regime and the high success rate of applicants has led to a great deal of public concern. It is for this reason that I am speaking against the amendment so that this matter can come to a vote and Parliament can express its will. This concern is especially strong among victims' advocacy groups. This has, in turn, led to a series of amendments to restrict access to faint hope and to make better arrangements for the needs of the families and the loved ones of murdered victims.

Thus, the government introduced amendments to the faint hope clause regime in 1995, which came into force in 1997, and it did toughen the application procedure.

In 1999 the Criminal Code was amended again in response to the concerns set out in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Victims' Rights - A Voice, Not a Veto”. As a result. under section 745.01 of the Crime Code, a judge sentencing someone convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason must state for the record and for the benefit of the surviving victims or their representatives the existence and the nature of the faint hope regime.

Given the controversial history of the faint hope regime, the rationale for Bill C-36 is very simple. Allowing convicted murderers a chance, even a faint chance, of getting early parole flies in the face of truth in sentencing. A court and a judge has sentenced a person to life imprisonment with no eligibility of parole for 25 years but this clause undermines that. As the short title of the bill indicates, truth in sentencing means that those who commit the most serious of crimes must do the most serious time.

Bill C-36 proposes to restore truth in sentencing for murderers and to protect society by keeping potentially violent offenders in prison for longer periods of time.

I am pleased to note that Bill C-36 fulfils the long-standing commitment of this government to repeal the faint hope clause for future offenders and to tighten up the current application procedure in the interests of the families and the loved ones of previously murdered victims.

If Bill C-36 is allowed to proceed to a vote and if the amendment is rejected by the House, it will, when it comes into force, bar those who commit murder or high treason from applying for faint hope. In effect, the faint hope regime will be repealed for all those commit murder in the future. It will also toughen the application process for already sentenced lifers with the right to apply for faint hope by setting a higher judicial screening test. From now on a judge must be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will unanimously agree to reduce an applicant's parole ineligibility period.

Moving from “reasonable prospect” to “a substantial likelihood of success” will slightly screen out the most undeserving applications and therefore sparing the families of the individuals who those applicants have been convicted of murdering.

There are longer waiting periods for re-application in the event of an unsuccessful initial faint hope application. There is a minimum of five years instead of the current two year waiting period for re-application.

Finally, Bill C-36 will impose a new three month time limit for the offender to reapply under the faint hope regime.

The three month time limit will apply to those offenders who have served at least 15 years of their sentence and have not yet applied. There are many offenders in prison now who have served 15 years or more who have not yet applied. Those offenders will have to make the application within three months of the coming into force of this legislation or wait another five years.

It will apply to those offenders who are now serving a sentence but who have not yet reached the 15 year mark. For example, they may have served four years, eight years, or ten years when the bill passes. After the 15 year point exactly in their sentences all of those murderers will have to bring an application within the window of three months. There is also a five year waiting period during which an offender may not apply at all if he or she does not apply to a judge within the new three month time limit.

To sum up, these new longer limits are explicitly designed to reduce the number of applications that someone may make and to spare the families and loved ones of victims from having to rehash the details of the crime every time a particular applicant applies for faint hope.

In closing, Bill C-36 will eliminate the faint hope regime for all future murderers and will ensure that all murderers now in prison have a much tougher time accessing this regime. None of the substantive aspects of Bill C-36 have been amended in any way by the committee. I see no point in the bill going back to committee. We have heard cogent evidence from witness groups, from witness advocates. We have also heard from adversaries of Bill C-36, including the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard societies, and other groups that have appeared before the committee.

The reforms of the faint hope clause regime will accomplish worthwhile goals, allowing Canadians to feel more protected in their homes and sparing the victims the trauma of the murderers of their loved ones applying for faint hope.

I encourage all members of the House to vote against the motion to send the bill back to committee for further deliberation. Canadians want the bill passed. They want the faint hope abolished and they want it done now.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam President, I listened carefully to my colleague. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I obviously do not share his beliefs in the least. As a criminal lawyer who has argued a number of murder cases and also argued before the parole board, I am extremely surprised to note that the Conservatives are attacking the faint hope clause. I will come back to that when I give my speech.

I have only one question and I am still waiting for the answer. My colleague has some statistics that we do not have because, unfortunately, we were unable to obtain them. It is the reason why we will vote in favour of the amending motion before this House. This is my question: given that the Conservatives have statistics that we do not, I would like to know if an individual, a single individual, who has used the faint hope clause was found guilty of another murder while on parole as a result of the process outlined in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite sits on the justice committee and he knows the statistics as well as I do. I outlined the number of applications and the number of successful applications.

I do not know if there is a conclusive study regarding the recidivism of applicants, but we know the number of individuals who have breached the terms of their parole. Those numbers were made available to the committee and he knows them as well as I do.

He may get a second chance to ask a question and he may be back on his feet, so I have a question for him. If this so-called missing information is available to the committee and if the bill is referred back to committee, what relevance is it going to have? He has already made up his mind that he will be voting against Bill C-36.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I find deplorable is that I have the answer. A good criminal lawyer knows the answer to the question he asks. The answer is no. There has never been one. We asked questions of all the witnesses who appeared before us, even the police. Not even the minister was able to tell us—and I will come back to that—what crimes were committed by the 13 individuals who returned to jail. Do not worry, I will come back to that in a few moments.

Yes, we will be voting against this bill. I see a problem and I am asking him a question. What is wrong with the faint hope clause? What do the Conservatives and some Liberals have against the faint hope clause which, since 1999, has protected not only society but also victims? I will come back to that in a moment.

I want to know what is wrong with this clause. What do they not like about it?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very easy question. What do we have against the faint hope clause? It is focused only on the offender. It is focused only on a person who has been convicted of first degree murder or high treason. It does not address anything to do with the victims. The member said he would come to the victims in a moment and then he sat down. It does not address the rights of victims. It only addresses the rights and the needs of those who have been convicted of first degree murder. That is what we have against it.

The member sat in committee. He listened to the victims' families. He knows the pain that victims are forced to relive when they go before juries at faint hope applications. He is quite right. Most faint hope applications are unsuccessful, which only means that the person is entitled to reapply in two years. Every two years families have to go through this process again when the individual applies for faint hope. It is not just me, but my constituents also do not believe that 15, 16 or 17 years in prison is an appropriate punishment for taking the life of an innocent victim.

The problem with the member's approach is he only looks at one side of the equation. He only looks at the offender. Is the faint hope clause a good deal for offenders? Absolutely; on that we can all agree. However, there are other parties to be considered, and I would suggest that the most important parties to be considered are the victims.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the proposed amendment to this bill. I already spoke about Bill C-36. But it looks as though I will need to come back to it, because the Conservatives did not understand. Since they did not understand, I will start over. I will talk about an amendment that is extremely important, and that we will support.

I agree with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, who moved this amendment. There are some basic things that the committee members should have been supplied with, such as figures, but were not. In this vast country of ours, we have the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada. The committee should have received information from certain people who work in a penitentiary—they had said that they would provide some—before it started its clause by clause study.

But that was just it. The Conservatives made sure that we had to rush through clause by clause, so that we could not get the figures, and, just like with the firearms registry, we got these figures after the bill was sent back to the House for third reading. That is unacceptable, and that is why we will vote in favour of this amendment to refer the bill back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where members can resume their debate with the figures that the government “forgot” to provide before the clause by clause study of the bill.

The Conservatives and some Liberals are completely wrong if they think that the faint hope clause, which was added to the Criminal Code in 1976 after the abolition of the death penalty, does not consider the victims or the relatives of victims. We must speak the truth, and the Conservatives need to understand. We will start over slowly this time, and give them an introductory course.

Let us take, for example, the case of an individual who commits the worst crime of all, first degree murder. First degree murder is premeditated. I will not discuss high treason, because that would not lead to much of a debate. In Canada, the last trial for high treason was the case of Louis Riel. We know what the Conservatives did to Louis Riel. We will not go there again.

Let us talk about first degree murder. People found guilty of such a murder are sentenced to life in prison. That is a fact. Individuals sentenced to life in prison will be under the justice system's supervision for the rest of their days.

The Conservatives say that such individuals can apply for parole after 15 years, that their applications are approved and that they can get out easily. That is not true. Justice Canada provided numbers dated April 9, 2009. Individuals sentenced to life in prison will be in prison for the rest of their lives.

Before 1976, we had a death penalty, but it was abolished. Individuals serving life sentences are told that they have to prove they can be rehabilitated. If they can, there is a process in place to help them reintegrate and become contributing members of society. Even if they do re-enter society, they will be under legal supervision for the rest of their lives.

Let us examine the existing process under the faint hope clause. I hope that my Liberal friends will stand up for this provision. Although we have already tried to persuade them to vote against Bill C-36, I will try once again. In 1976, the Liberals abolished the death penalty and set up this process.

I repeat: an individual is sentenced to life. After 15 years, he can apply to the chief justice of the superior court in the province in which the murder was committed.

Let us take the example of a murder committed in Ottawa. The individual must apply to a judge in the city where the murder was committed. The Conservatives think that the individual can apply anywhere, but that is not true. The application must be made where the murder was committed. The individual must then convince the chief justice or his designated representative to empanel a jury.

Let us move on to the first step. Many inmates do not even go beyond the first step, because it is ridiculous. The members opposite gave ridiculous examples and mentioned the Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson cases. These two people will never be entitled to appear before a judge before the end of their minimum 25-year sentence, which is life. They will definitely not have that right, because for the time being, they certainly cannot be rehabilitated.

An individual appears before a judge and tries to convince him to empanel a jury. Let us say that he convinces the judge. The inmate explains that 15 years earlier, he committed a horrible murder and deliberately killed someone, but that since then, he has taken steps to rehabilitate himself. The judge is convinced and decides to empanel a jury.

The Conservatives are going to have to stop saying that the jury decides to release the individual, because that is not true. The individual must convince a jury of 12 people, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the place where the murder was committed at least 15 years earlier, that he can apply to appear before the parole board to ask for parole. That makes a lot of steps to go through.

We are told that we are not considering the victims. The opposite is true: it is the faint hope clause that best protects victims' families. That is the primary concern. I will say it in English, because I think that my Conservative friends do not understand: it is the first preoccupation of the parole board and the jury to determine whether the individual has been rehabilitated.

The best example is that no offender will ever be released if he has not shown some understanding of the impact on the victim's family. In the case of a first degree murder, an offender who does not regret his actions will never, ever be released. All National Parole Board data say so. Never. That is the first step an offender must take. He must show that he has been rehabilitated.

The best way is to meet the victim's family. In the 15 years that the offender has been incarcerated, he will have made some progress. He will have given some thought to the abject crime he has committed, namely, first degree murder. The individual has been given a life sentence. He took the first step and appeared before a judge. The judge empanelled a jury. What does the jury do? It hears witnesses. The murderer—let us call him that—must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he has been rehabilitated and is ready to reintegrate into society.

How does he do that? Having argued such cases, I can assure the House that it is not easy. He must convince a jury. How does he do that? There is testimony from a criminologist, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, the victim's family. The Conservatives believe that victims' families will have to relive the crime. Not one family has ever gone before the National Parole Board without having been properly prepared. The families receive explanations and information. They are told how the process works and, most importantly, not whether the individual in question deserves to be released or not, because that is not what the jury must determine. The jury must determine if it will be possible for the individual to apply to the parole board, within a timeframe set out by the jury. The offender is not released by the jury. That is what the Conservatives do not understand.

Under the faint hope clause, the individual in question has to convince the jury that he can ask the National Parole Board to be eligible to apply for parole. That is what happens. That is why we want the minister to provide us with the figures that someone has neglected to give us. The individual has to convince the jury that he could, after a certain number of years, apply for parole. For example, the jury can say that it agrees that the individual is eligible and recommends that he apply to the National Parole Board in his 17th, 18th or 20th year of detention. It is not automatic. That is what the Conservatives do not understand. This is not done automatically. Parole is earned, especially in this case. We are talking about the worst criminals; those who have committed murder.

On April 9, 2009—listen to this because the Conservatives do not understand and we are going to explain it—there were 4,000 individuals serving life sentences in Canada's prisons. On April 9, 2009, 265 applications were filed and 140 applicants were granted parole—one hundred and forty. I think the Conservatives will understand that.

Not just anyone gets parole. Less than a tenth of inmates do. Not just that; there is more to come. One hundred and forty inmates were granted a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. Instead of waiting 25 years, some waited 17 years, others 18, 19 or 20 years to apply. Out of 127 applicants who were released, 13 were returned to prison—I will come back to that—3 were deported, 11 were dead, one was out on bail, one was in temporary custody, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions.

Thirteen individuals subsequently returned to prison. I am certain that the Conservatives, or their minister, forgot to give us the figures and this is what we want to know. What type of crime did these 13 people who subsequently returned to prison commit? We do not know. Nonetheless, as sure as I stand here, if one of those 13 individuals had committed another murder, we would know it. I can assure hon. members of that. I am certain they did not commit another murder. What did they do? They probably failed to meet their parole conditions.

There is something the Conservatives do not understand. Perhaps I should invite them to visit a penitentiary one day, or see the parole service or even attend a parole board hearing. They would understand that 98 out of the 140 respected their parole conditions. The conditions are very strict but the Conservatives and some Liberals have forgotten that.

Someone who commits first degree murder is supervised by the parole board until they die. They are supervised by the court system until they die. Inmates are not as free as the birds when they are released. They cannot just leave and go home and relax. No, they are subject to parole conditions and, there is no need to worry, the release conditions for someone convicted of first degree murder are extremely stringent. That is what I told the Conservatives. However, I do not understand why, but sometimes they do not listen to me.

An offender is not simply released. First, there must be proof that he has been rehabilitated and he must provide that proof. The onus is on the individual to provide that proof. He must demonstrate that he is ready to be returned to society, that he has a job, a family and, above all, that he has been rehabilitated. The overriding concern is to prove that he has shown concern for the victims and the victims' families.

Someone who commits first degree murder and who does not show concern for his victim, who just does not care, will never be released. Never. I agree with my colleagues that—and this is the only concession I will make to the Conservatives in this matter—we must prevent the victims from having to relive the crime that was committed two or three times. A single case was brought to our attention where that did happen. We have to avoid that; we have to prepare the victims' families who attend the hearing. I am not aware of any individual who has been released who did not and does not show concern for the victim's family.

I will give an example. A number of years ago, a lawyer in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean committed a murder. Mr. Dunn, a lawyer, killed his law partner, Mr. McNicoll. Mr. Dunn always denied deliberately killing his colleague, but he was kept in custody. He took responsibility for his actions, and he is now one of the 98 prisoners who has been paroled, and not only has he not re-offended, but he has also become a respectable member of society. However, he must abide by conditions for the rest of his life.

I will say just one last thing: if Bill C-36 passes, we will take away the offender's last hope for rehabilitation.

Will this increase the risk of violence in prisons? The answer is yes, and that is what the committee heard from the Correctional Service of Canada. What does someone do when he has nothing left to lose, when he is in prison and has lost all hope? He starts doing the dirty work for others, as we see all too often in our penitentiaries.

In conclusion, I hope that the Liberals will rethink their position, that this bill will be re-examined in committee, and, above all, that the Conservatives will understand that the faint hope clause, or section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, must be maintained.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his interesting and somewhat animated contribution to this debate.

Bearing in mind that this is a motion to send the bill back to committee, I wanted to know why he is supporting this motion when it is quite clear that he does not support Bill C-36. His mind is already made up.

Is it not his real agenda to delay the work of the committee? He knows how busy the committee is. We have legislation before us dealing with white collar crime, modernizing criminal procedure and ending discounts for multiple murderers.

Is that not his real agenda, to delay the work of the committee and to prevent Parliament from doing its job?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we hold in our hands the fate of offenders whom we are trying to rehabilitate, and he has the nerve to tell me how busy the committee is. I know that it is busy, but that is the Conservatives' fault. This morning, they introduced nine justice bills. The only thing they care about is being what they call “tough on crime”.

I fully agree that we need to take care of victims, but the Conservatives need to understand that we have to do these things one at a time, and properly. That means that if we do not conduct a thorough review of Bill C-36, it will not pass. In fact, it should not pass because it will put many people's lives at risk. I will calm down, but I think it is immoral for anyone to tell us to rush bills through the process.

We have to look at the potential impact of a bad bill. I would like to point out to the member that bad laws make good lawyers rich. The Conservatives need to realize where they stand with respect to the Federal Court, and they need to understand that they are not right about everything and that we have to take the time to do things properly.

If the committee is still studying the bill after Christmas, so be it. It is not that big a deal. The faint hope clause is at stake here. People have the right to it, and I hope that we will have enough time to study it properly.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question, but first I would like to point out to him, and I am sure he knows, that the government is very good at hiding information.

In fact it is even worse than that. On the air passenger bill of rights, we found that the government was actually involving itself, the minister was involving himself, with the airline lobby to develop a campaign against the bill. On the gun bill, which we saw here a couple of weeks ago, we saw the government sitting for almost two months on a report that would have been favourable to the gun registry.

We are seeing a pattern develop with the government, so it should be no surprise to anyone here that the government would be sitting on information, hiding information that would be relevant to the discussions dealing with this particular bill. That just adds to the merits of our member's resolution before the House right now.

I would like to ask the member whether he thinks there may be more incidents like this of the government hiding information from members of this Parliament.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my career as a criminal lawyer, my most important client was always the one in front of me, whom I had to defend before the court. It is worth repeating: justice issues are very important. I do not mean to denigrate the work of other members, because I respect what they do, but this work is very important because it gives people their freedom. We must give this the attention it deserves.

As a parliamentarian and a lawyer, when someone forgets—I was going to use another word, but I will avoid it so as to avoid a point of order—deliberately or not, to hand over documents or to give us the information we need to make decisions, I take exception to that. In fact, I think I should take exception more often.

Bills C-52, C-42, C-36, C-31 and C-32 need to be studied immediately. Should they be studied quickly? No, we will take our time and give them the careful consideration they deserve, as we should and as we are expected to do. Then we will see.

For now, the issue that concerns me is Bill C-36. In my opinion, we must take time to give it the consideration it deserves. The Conservatives must stop forgetting to give us the documents needed to study this bill.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is so upset and feels so prejudiced by the fact that this information from Mr. Head, the chief of Correctional Service of Canada, was so pivotal, why did he not raise this at committee? He is a member of the justice committee. He was there the day we did clause by clause. If this information is so pivotal to the examination of this bill, as he is suggesting today, why was this matter not raised at the first opportunity?

The member supports the motion from the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh to send this bill back to committee, which I suggest is only to delay passage of not only this bill but other bills. If he felt so prejudiced by the lack of this information, why was that not raised? Why did he allow clause by clause to proceed without objection if he thought that information was so pivotal?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will reply very honestly to the question.

Give me another five years, and then we will see if they can still pull fast ones like this on me.

We did not know. My hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh informed us after the clause by clause study. We thought we would obtain the information before that study. They tricked me once, but I am warning my colleagues now that I am a fast learner and I will not be fooled again.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reality in response to that last question is that a number of us on committee were told that the material from Mr. Head had been sent to our offices. That was false information. That was a mistake.

On November 16, all parties committed to deal with this bill on a clause by clause basis, and we were under the belief that the information was in the hands of other members of committee. It was not until yesterday morning that we found out that was not the truth.

If ministers are going to be allowed to withhold information, whether intentionally or unintentionally in disregard of the role of the committee process in this legislature, why are we here not only as members of opposition parties but as government members as well? Why not just turn it all over to cabinet and let cabinet run the whole government?

If the committee system is going to work, do we not need to have a guarantee that we are going to get information in a timely fashion? Does my colleague share my frustration?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has approximately one minute to respond.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick. My answer is yes. I completely agree with my colleague.

The perfect example of this is all the information the government did not want to provide about the firearms registry. I am talking about the RCMP report that was tabled after the vote on the private member's bill introduced by a member whose riding I cannot remember. I believe it was Bill C-391. I will say one thing: it is not worth trying to hide things, because this only serves to slow down the work of Parliament. Work here moves along at a much slower pace. The proof of this is that if we had been given the figures, we would not be re-examining the position taken by the committee right now. The government must stop hiding things, and must respect the committees and the work that is being done by parliamentarians in committee. They must give us all the information, and that way, we will not have to come back to Parliament to ask that a bill be referred back to committee for reconsideration, when it should have been studied properly in the first place.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the amendment to Bill C-36, put forward by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, not so much to debate the relative merits of the bill as it pertains to section 745, the faint hope clause, but to debate the actual amendment. This is a procedural amendment, put forward out of frustration and, I would argue, put forward out of a genuine commitment and love for parliamentary procedure by my colleague from Windsor. It is to that I would like to address my remarks today.

More and more Canadians are reminding members of Parliament that the one hour a day of question period is not acceptable to them. The squalor that is question period is not truly representative, we know, of the work that goes on in the House of Commons, but this is what the public sees. Therefore, we remind school teachers and people who bring groups of young people to witness Parliament that the real co-operative, collaborative work of parliamentarians goes on well behind the scenes at the parliamentary committees. It is in committee that we do the nation's real work. It is at committee that we paddle our canoes together in the same direction so we can achieve something good for Canadians.

Most of us believe and most of us find some comfort that genuine work goes on in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, on behalf of Canadians. It was in that vein that some of us started to protest when parliamentary secretaries came on to committees and started to be elected as chairs. A lot of us intervened. We said no, if we allowed a parliamentary secretary to be the chair of the committee, the PS was really an agent of the government. The parliamentary secretaries have a loyalty to the government. Their first interest is to the agenda of the government, not necessarily to the collaborative effort of the committee. We quite rightly protested this, and it is no longer the case. We do not see parliamentary secretaries chairing committees.

Some of us would go further and even argue that parliamentary secretaries should not even be part of committees because they are unable to leave their political baggage at the door like the rest of us should do.

I lament that in recent years the fabric that held the parliamentary committees together, the common bond that we had, the impartiality that many committees enjoyed, has been tested, has been strained, has even been torn and fractured to the point, I despair, the last sanctuary of true parliamentary democracy has been eroded by political interference, by manipulation. It in fact has been abused to some degree in a number of very worrisome examples.

This has led my colleague from Windsor today to draw a line in the sand. In this case, the justice committee is being manipulated by, we argue, political interference through the minister's office in withholding information. Some of my colleagues have been very generous in how they phrase this. They have said that the minister forgot to send over very pertinent and relevant information on Bill C-36 to the committee so it could deal with the information during the clause-by-clause analysis and possibly amend the bill.

I am using the term “withheld”, because I am starting to see a motif, a very worrisome pattern that this is not a problem in isolation at the justice committee. We now have a number of examples where there have been cover ups regarding information that should flow freely to committees so members of Parliament can do their job, can study bills with the due diligence their responsibility dictates. However, they are being denied that.

At the very least, my colleague from Windsor is alleging that there is a breach of the collective privilege of the members of the committee and that they have every right to have access to all the pertinent information they call for so they can do their due diligence with regard to the bill, with a degree of confidence that they have all the facts.

In this instance, other members have laid out the problems surrounding access to information for the committee. I went to the trouble of reading the blues of the justice committee hearing on November 4. Witnesses made very firm undertakings that they would produce the relevant information regarding the number of appeals made under the faint hope clause, the rate of success of those appeals, the information surrounding victims' statements on that appeal process, all of which would have been very useful to the committee.

The witnesses undertook that they would ensure they would get the information to the committee prior to the clause-by-clause analysis, so if the information warranted it, committee members could in fact put forward amendments, or not. Either way they would be comfortable that they had the most pertinent and relevant information about the actual empirical evidence, the experience of the use of section 745, the faint hope clause.

This is the very information that has been denied to them. They waited and they waited. The time came and went. They still had not seen the information the witnesses promised to give them. We are talking about senior bureaucrats who should be able to provide that information, such as the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada.

The reason the frustration is breaking out today is committee members have now learned that the witnesses did comply with the timeframes to which they stipulated themselves. They did go home, did that research, pulled that data from their information files and brought it to the Government of Canada. However, where did it wind up? Not with the clerk of the justice committee and not on the desks of the members of the justice committee. The information went to the Minister of Public Safety and sat there and sat there until such time as the opportunity was lost. The committee stage for amending the bill was lost.

We all know a bill is relatively easy to amend at committee. At second reading, a bill is passed in principle, but substantive amendments are still possible at committee. At third reading, there is very little we can amend of a substantive nature.

Therefore, the window of opportunity had been lost to the members, and I argue taken away from them. The information was withheld from the members by the minister. The minister did not pass it along to the committee. It shows a disrespect for the committee. Tampering with that kind of evidence should be an offence of a higher nature. I have heard it said before that Parliament is the highest court in the land. A parliamentary committee, acting under the purview of Parliament, has rights, privileges and powers. To deliberately manipulate or withhold evidence from that parliamentary committee is an offence. It is an affront to Parliament. Whether it is an offence in any further way remains to be seen.

That gave rise to the frustration of my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He has come forward and has said that information was important to the members so they could do their job. They had asked for it, the witnesses delivered it, but it never came to their desk. Now at this point in time we want to refer this matter back to the committee. We have the information in our hands and we want to refer that matter back so we can revisit especially clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Bill C-36. The information the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada brings forward may change what the committee members intend to do in their final treatment of the bill before it comes back to the House for third reading.

I believe it is a matter of fairness, transparency, accountability and it is in keeping with the commitment the Prime Minister made not that long ago, that he would empower committees to do more meaningful work as one of the ways to enhance democracy through the parliamentary process. If anything, there has been a worrisome pattern developing that actually diminishes the power and the authority of committees.

Let me explain my point because I do not say this lightly. Last fall, almost a year ago today, we saw a very worrisome pattern. Committees were being filibustered by Conservative government members and committee chairs were denying due process at committees. Whenever things were not going their way, they would disrupt committees. They had a manual for that. I called it the anarchist handbook. That was worrisome enough but other examples have come forward since then.

Recently we held a very contentious vote in the House of Commons on the gun registry. As it turns out, the latest state of the moment snapshot report of the efficacy and the use of the gun registry, the actual experience of the gun registry's use, had been published and was ready to be released, but the government of the day sat on that information until such time as it could get its bill through. I presume it felt its case was better made without the facts rather than with the facts. It was available the very next day, after the vote, and it was too late to do anything about it.

Members can see the picture I am trying to paint.

Another worrisome example was brought forward by my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. In the process of trying to develop and move forward a legitimate private member's bill on airline passenger bill of rights, something of great interest to many Canadians, collusion was going on behind the scenes with the government and the lobby group trying to defeat the bill, trying to undermine democracy.

It is fair game if people want to make a case for or against a bill in the House of Commons. A bill should stand on its merits. It should be able to survive legitimate debate and all the facts from both sides put forward and let the chips fall where they may. However, to undermine that process by going behind the scenes, through the back door, to sabotage democracy is again in keeping with a worrisome trend we are seeing. It is becoming the hallmark of the government. It is becoming a motif that we see time and time again.

Another example, and the last one I will make regarding this worrisome pattern as it pertains to committees, is a committee that I sat on, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Afghan detainee issue came before the committee. At that time, and it has only been borne out in recent days, which is why I use it as a relevant example, a journalist and a university professor filed access to information requests, asking for any and all correspondence, emails, communications or internal documents regarding the transfer of Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers to the Afghan military. Time and again these petitioners would be told by the government that no such documents of that nature existed. No emails, correspondence, reports or data had ever been provided on this subject, so nothing could be released.

We did not believe it, so we brought in the Globe and Mail journalist and the professor from the University of Ottawa as witnesses before our committee. We also brought in the ATIP coordinator for the Department of Foreign Affairs and for the Department of National Defence. Everyone swore on a stack of bibles that no such information existed. They were not denying information, there was none. Now we learn from a senior Washington diplomat that he filed regular and frequent correspondence to everyone he could think of who blew the whistle or alerted the Canadian government that the transfer of Afghan detainees left them vulnerable to probable torture. The correspondence did exist. We were lied to by the government.

This goes beyond a breach of privilege for committee members. This goes beyond the public's right to know. This enters into illegal. In fact, the ruling party might consider whether it wants to do away with the faint hope clause because the violation for denying the existence of documents under the Access to Information Act is in fact a high—

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is supposed to be a debate on Bill C-36. In fact, it is specific to an amendment to take Bill C-36 out of third reading and send it back to committee. With all due respect to the member for Winnipeg Centre, I do not have a clue what Afghan detainees have to do with the bill under consideration or the amendment of the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member is making some arguments. I will ask him to come to the point that he is making with respect to the amendment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I believe I can demonstrate that my comments are in fact germane and pertinent to the motion to refer.

I was speaking of the rights of committees to access information they need to do their job properly, which is exactly the point my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh is making. I ask for the support of other members of Parliament not on the merits of Bill C-36 but on the merits that committee members need the facts in order to make determinations and carry out due diligence to the work that is put in front of them. I was giving an example of where we in committee were denied that systematically.

My point was that members had better think twice before they try to do away with section 745 of the Criminal Code, the faint hope clause, because the punishment for deliberately destroying documents or deliberately denying the existence of them under the Access to Information Act is right up there in the Criminal Code with high crimes and misdemeanours, including treason. It is on par with treason because it sabotages and undermines democracy, and takes away from the very spirit of the public's right to know. We cannot do our jobs without that freedom of information as committee members.

That is the worrisome pattern that I am trying to illustrate. The deliberate withholding of information that was directly relevant to the determination of Bill C-36 undermined the rights of my colleagues on the justice committee in their ability to do their job properly.

Some committee members who spoke I believe were generous in their portrayal of what happened, saying that the minister simply forgot to pass the information that was requested on to committee member. I do not think that was any accident.

I think perhaps the minister is on fairly weak ground, that his arguments do not have a great deal of substance for the need to change the faint hope clause. I believe the actual experience, the empirical evidence that was asked for and that he withheld, would have done great damage to the arguments of members on the government side as to why they thought they needed to make these changes in the criminal justice system at this point in time.

Again, I do not speak to the merits of Bill C-36. That is not why I asked for an opportunity to speak today. I am speaking, as a vice-chair of a parliamentary committee, on behalf of the rights of committee members to function. When committee members ask for certain information and that information is made available to them by witnesses, the minister does not have any right to intercept that information and have it sit for days, weeks or months on his desk while the committee members struggle with only half of the information.

I am not a lawyer, but if we were in a court situation, that is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our legal system: full disclosure of the facts. The prayer we say every day when Parliament opens is that we have the ability to make good law. We cannot make good law without access to the facts.

If one side is withholding pertinent information for political purposes, that sabotages and undermines the democratic process. It is an affront to democracy and to Parliament. The collective privileges of the members of Parliament in that committee have surely been breached at the very least.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left? None.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. Perhaps the hon. member can continue during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish only to comment on the remarks of the member from the separatist-socialist-Liberal coalition and his exaggerated indignation.

Since we have had two consecutive minority governments, we are in a situation where the total number of members on a committee for the opposition outnumbers the number of government MPs. That is why we are seeing one kangaroo court or blown-up inquiry after another. Opposition members have been hijacking the very serious business of committees, even blocking the testimony of witnesses or the witnesses themselves from coming to committee, whose points of view differ from that of the separatist-socialist-Liberal coalition.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was not really listening to my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. She started with an insult and I did not think it was worth listening to whatever else she had to say. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh said that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke used to belong to the Conservative Reform Alliance party. It had to change the name because it said CRAP.

I do not want to use my time to insult her. I do not think that she should use her time to insult me.

We are talking about a very serious issue here, which is the right of committee members to do their job without interference and without being sabotaged by the ruling party and the advantage it enjoys in rationing out tidbits of information that we all have a right to.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. We are dealing with an extremely serious issue here. It really goes to the core of the denial of proper information for committees and members of the House of Commons, so that they can make good decisions. I congratulate the member on his remarks because I think he outlined a number of areas where the government is in fact denying information to committee members.

I know the member did not hear the question from the member from the governing party, but her question related to the fact that opposition members are the majority on committees now. She tried to imply that, as a result of that, committees have become kangaroo courts and that therefore the committee members were denying witnesses who wanted to come before committee. I believe it is the defence committee that she was talking about.

The reality is, and I will ask the member to confirm or deny, that Canadians decided what the makeup of the House of Commons would be. They decided that they would not grant the party opposite a majority. We are doing our job as opposition members as a result.

A member of the government has suggested that we are denying a witness. We are not denying a witness. We are saying that if we are going to make proper decisions as a committee, the government should provide the documentation, the emails and the briefing notes to ministers. The committee needs to have access to the information, so that we can question that witness properly. Otherwise, how are we to know that the government has not told the individual to come to committee to give a misleading story or some such thing?

We need the evidence first. I would like the member to comment on that because I think it goes to the heart of what the government is all about: messaging, implying certain things, fear and intimidation. The ten percenters it sends into my riding and across this country are nothing short of hate mail. That is why they are. They are not providing information. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, from all of the very valid comments my colleague from Prince Edward Island makes, the operative word and the thread throughout his comments is access to information and freedom of information. We have a right to know these things. In fact, as committee members, we have a duty and obligation to have all the facts before we make a determination.

However, there has been a systematic withholding of information. I am glad that my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke raised this. The latest example of this was at the defence committee, where we would all like to hear from the former ambassador, Mr. Mulroney, but not without the prerequisite information before the committee first. It is up to the committee to determine what facts it needs and when, and who it would like to hear from and when.

I am sure that it would like to hear from Mr. Mulroney, but it would like to have the pertinent documents first. It has requested them and once again, there is a rationing out of facts and information by the government instead of a full disclosure and a full, voluntary freedom of information, which is what was supposed to be the cornerstone of the government's administration. Instead, it is obsessed with secrecy and cover-up.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Winnipeg Centre's discussion on this. It is an important component, not just about the issue but about the procedure that is taking place here.

I am fortunate to sit on the industry committee where there seems to be more of a working order in place. It is actually chaired well and is respected by members, for the most part. We have our differences, but it functions very well.

I have had the chance as well, though, to sit in substitution for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh at the justice committee in the last session during the government's filibustering of its own committee and basically declaring an end to the committee meeting.

What I would like the member to talk a bit about is the importance of the committees with regard to bringing in witnesses in order to hear the testimony that is necessary to make decisions and the cost of that. It costs thousands of dollars to bring in people from all over the country to get this testimony, which is very important, because committees cannot often travel across the country and it is even more far more expensive to do that. However, it is critical to get a pan-Canada opinion on matters.

When we see this type of undermining by the minister, it really takes away from all the evidence that is presented, because many of the groups that come before committee do so in succession. They look and they listen to the other submissions from people across the different spectrums, whether they are in favour or against a particular issue at committee.

I would like the member to talk about that because there is an incredible cost that taxpayers have to pay. Shenanigans like this from the Conservative Party waste taxpayers' dollars because they require the re-working of things and also they affect, almost like a chain down the order, the other witnesses who are there with a sincere interest to actually promote different issues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point is that a bill or a piece of legislation should be able to succeed or fail on its own merits. If the government was proud of or confident in the merits of its bill, it should be able to survive robust debate and debate that is guided by all the facts and all the information on both sides. That is how we test the mettle of a piece of legislation. If it can survive robust debate from both sides, if it can survive the consultation process and the due diligence of a functional working committee, then it has been tested well and it deserves to come back to the House, and be reported to the House for third reading.

However, to undermine and to deny committee members their ability to do their job in a systematic way speaks to an insecurity of the government. I think the government knows full well that a lot of what it is putting forward is just fluff. It is pure political pablum, to buy votes not to in any way move forward the political life of Canada.

I began my speech, I believe, in a fairly generous tone, by saying that parliamentary committees are the backbone of our democracy and it is a pleasure when they are working well. I am glad that my colleague on the industry committee can say that he is satisfied that his committee functions the way it is meant to.

We used to be able to tell school teachers who brought their classes to Parliament, and were embarrassed by question period, that at least at the committees was where the real work of the people was done. I can no longer say that with any confidence because the committee process has been undermined, diminished and sabotaged by political interference. We are seeing another example of it today.

That is why we should support the amendment of my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh to refer Bill C-36 back to the justice committee, so that the committee can review the information that the minister has withheld from it, as the committee may want to amend Bill C-36 to make it better.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Halifax.

The amendment moved by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is a very important one, particularly since the information was available and was obtained. In fact, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh was told that the information was actually mailed to his office and the offices of the other critics just in the last couple of days, but that proved not to be correct.

In terms of the length of the murder sentences in other countries, a 1999 international comparison of average time served in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder showed the average time served in Canada was 28.4 years. That is greater than all the countries that were surveyed, including the United States.

In fact, in New Zealand, the first country on the list, the time served was 11 years. In Scotland it was 11.2 years. In Sweden it was 12 years. In Belgium it was 12.7 years. In Australia it was 14.8 years. In the United States, life sentence with parole was 18.5 years. We see that Canada already has a higher figure at 28.4 years. The countries with the shortest and longest incarceration periods for people serving murder sentences provide points of comparison with Canada.

In New Zealand, prisoners become eligible for release after seven years if sentenced prior to August 1, 1987, or after ten years of sentence after that date, unless the minimum term was imposed by the court. The most recent published statistics covering the period from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 shows that the average number of years served in custody by this class of inmates was 12.1 years.

In the United States, while every state provides for life sentences, there is a broad range of severity and implementation in the statutes. I mentioned earlier today that in the state of Michigan, the governor, who was in favour of the death penalty, changed his mind after numerous cases of wrongful convictions were found. Time goes fast but I think that was in the last seven or eight years.

In the six states of Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania and South Dakota, and in the federal system, all life sentences are imposed without the possibility of parole. Only Alaska provides the possibility of parole for all life sentences. The remaining 43 states have laws that permit sentencing most defendants to life with or without parole.

In the case of life sentences with the possibility of parole, the time that must be served prior to eligibility for release varies greatly from under 10 years in Utah and California to 40 to 50 years in Colorado and Kansas. The median length of time served prior to parole eligibility nationally is in the range of 25 years. However, eligibility does not mean release and we have dealt with that before.

Bill C-36 consists of seven clauses. This section contains discussion of the most important of the clauses that I am dealing with right now. Clause 2 is an addition of subsection 745.01 to the Criminal Code. We are dealing with the different clauses in the bill which we have dealt with in committee.

The amendment basically asks that the bill go back to committee because there was information that was available and which should have been available before the members made their votes on the different amendments known at the committee. They did not have the benefit of the available information at that time. The amendment is in order. It is time to go back and take a look at some of the information.

There were different pieces of information that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh wanted that would have in some way affected his assessment of the bill. He wanted to know the reoffending rate and no specifics were given on that. He wanted information on the ages of the offenders. He wanted information on how often the faint hope clause was used and how often it was granted on the first application. He wanted to know at what age the offenders went into prison and at what age they got out of prison.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh wanted several other pieces of information that we subsequently found out were available but were not available when members made the decision on the case.

A number of other pieces of information can be dealt with regarding this bill. The bill will not be retroactive. The faint hope regime will continue to apply to those who are currently serving or awaiting sentencing for murder, but it will not be available to those who commit offences once the bill is in force.

For those who are able to make an application for a judicial review, clause 3 imposes a number of additional restrictions. New applications must be made within 90 days of the day on which the offender has served 15 years of his or her sentence or within 90 days of the coming into force of the bill. Repeat applications must be made within 90 days of the fifth anniversary of the last application or the date set by the judge or jury. If no such application is made, or if an applicant is unsuccessful, five years must pass before a fresh application can be made, an increased length of time from the current two year period. The government's intention is to make it more difficult for the faint hope clause to occur for people who would currently qualify for it. The offender will have to apply within 90 days of that date.

Under the new regime, unsuccessful applicants for judicial review will be able to apply twice, once when they become eligible after serving 15 years of his or her sentence and once more at the 20 year mark. Under the current regime, unsuccessful applicants may apply a total of five times, when they have been incarcerated for 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 years, as long as the further applications are permitted by a judge or a jury.

Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the words “substantial likelihood” to the judge's decision and changes to time periods.

Section 745.61 of the Criminal Code sets out the procedure to be followed by a chief justice or a designated judge of the superior court in determining whether an applicant for judicial review of his or her sentence has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

Clause 4 of Bill C-36 changes the words “reasonable prospect of success” to “substantial likelihood of success”. Once again, this is a tightening up of the application and the wording. This change in language sets a more stringent requirement for proving the possible success of the application. The words “reasonable prospect” are replaced with “substantial likelihood” in at least four subsections.

Clause 4 changes the amount of time applicants for judicial review must wait before making a second application should they not succeed the first time around. Currently, if the judge determines there is not a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed, he or she may set a time not earlier than two years at or after which another application may be made, or decide that no other such application may be made. This will be amended to extend the period to five years before which another application may be made. Current subsection 745.61(4) states that if the judge sets no time, the applicant may make another application no earlier than two years after the date of the denied application. This default period will also be extended to five years by the provisions of Bill C-36.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I serve on the justice committee and I think the flavour of the testimony that will not come out in the chamber here as we debate this motion is the testimony of the victims' families who talked to us about the prospect of repetitive requirements, if not legal, then moral requirements to attend, to present and relive the tragic events of their loss.

One aspect of the bill changes the timeframe from every two years to every five years. My friend even said in his remarks that in the 15th year, the 17th year, the 19th year, the 21st year, the 23rd year perhaps, until forever, these victims could relive the horror. Let us face it. Through this process if a person is denied the faint hope at the 15th year, the 17th year, the 19th year and the 21st year, it is very unlikely that person will achieve something in the 23rd year.

Does the member not at least agree, as we did at the committee, that we should take into account the horror for victims in reliving this every two years and that the five year rule is not out of line?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the treatment of victims is extremely important for all of us to consider. I have mentioned many, many times that in my home province of Manitoba, 20 years ago in the case of a break-in to a property, the victim could not get much information from the police, could not get much information about the trial date for the accused, could not find out the disposition of the case. The victim was basically left hung out to dry with no counselling services.

Over the years through successive governments, Manitoba brought in a system of victims' rights so that the victim will now know what is the disposition of the case, where the criminal is, whether the criminal is in prison or out of prison. The victim will get counselling to overcome the psychological damage that was caused by the break-in, the hold-up or whatever the criminal act happened to be.

We are very aware that whatever system we develop, whatever mechanism we have for dealing with the justice system, we have to bend over backwards to be sensitive to the victims and their families. We have to make certain that we take all precautions possible to deal with that issue and make sure that people are not dealt with in a negative manner. Certainly, that has been the case in the past and we want to take steps to improve that in the future.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have heard the member speak twice today about Bill C-36. Clearly he is against the bill and is in favour of the faint hope clause. I am curious as to the relevance of this so-called statistical information that successive members of the NDP have alleged has breached the privilege of one of its members. What relevance does that information have, since it is abundantly clear that all members of the NDP caucus will be voting against Bill C-36 because they like the faint hope clause?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reason the member for Windsor—Tecumseh moved the amendment is very straightforward. Today he gave the chronology of events. He explained that Mr. Head appeared before the committee on November 4 and was not prepared. He was asked a series of questions. I have outlined what the questions were, but I can give them again if the member would like.

This information should have been available to the members of the committee from the very beginning. The fact that the information was supposed to be obtained and given at a later date and was given after the fact is definitely an affront to the committee system, an affront to Parliament and an affront to democracy itself.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for the opportunity to share this time during debate.

I wholeheartedly support the motion to send Bill C-36 back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I hope my colleagues will see fit to support the motion as well.

When the bill was before the justice and human rights committee, Mr. Head of Correctional Service Canada appeared before the committee. He was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, for statistics on who was subject to the faint hope clause on the 25 year eligibility but he was not able to provide that information but agreed to provide the information to the committee at a later date.

My colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh also asked for data on how many people were actually successful on their first application and data on how many people applied a second or third time or more. He also asked Mr. Head for information on victims presenting statements and their attendance at hearings.

Later, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the commissioner for information on recidivism rates and asked if he could get the information to the committee quickly, within a week. Mr. Head stated that it was possible and that he would undertake to do this. He did hold up his end of the bargain.

However, now we have Bill C-36 before the House at third reading and the committee still has not seen this information from Mr. Head.

We are expected, as elected members of the House of Commons who hold the trust and the faith of our electorate, of our constituents, to vote on Bill C-36 when we do not have this information before us, and when the minister has been withholding this information submitted by Mr. Head, and when the minister has withheld this information from the committee.

I am a new MP in the House and I am just learning the rules and the finer points of procedure of this noble House. However, despite my inexperience with the rules of committee procedure, I know that the fact the committee has been kept in the dark and that information the committee has requested is being withheld from them by the minister's office is just not on.

It is incredible to me that we even need to bring forward this motion. I think Canadians would actually be grateful to my colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh for catching it, for raising it here in the House of Commons and for bringing this motion forward.

It is incredible to hear that the minister received this report on November 16. It is also incredible that a standing committee of this Parliament is having its duty and obligation to carefully review legislation, to make amendments, to explore the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of legislation and to call in expert witnesses and witnesses from the community, interfered with by essentially the minister's office.

Despite my inexperience with parliamentary procedure, I certainly have experience with truth, fairness and justice. I would say that this attempt to keep information from a parliamentary committee is not about truth, justice or fairness. It is an affront to democracy. It is an affront to democracy whether there is a rule in the handbook or not. It is an affront to democracy that the government would meddle in the business of the committee.

Committee work is key to our parliamentary democracy because it is an opportunity for members to sit as a group, as a committee no less, and look at a piece of legislation with a critical eye and to hear from witnesses who have expertise and knowledge on the issue.

I have certainly had my mind changed on certain issues and have come to understand issues better with more nuance, thanks to the incredible testimony of witnesses who can bring a different eye to the legislation.

The committee is a chance for MPs to work together. Believe it or not, sometimes they do work together to better a piece of legislation, to make amendments or sometimes to chuck it right out the window. Sometimes all parties actually agree that a certain piece of legislation cannot go forward and that it needs to be tossed out. This all happens in committee.

When the Canadian Bar Association appeared before the committee, it stated that this bill should not be amended, that it could not be improved and that it should not pass because it was not a good bill, which, in my opinion, was a remarkable thing for the CBA to say.

In an attempt to thoroughly consider this bill, my colleagues from Windsor—Tecumseh and Abitibi—Témiscamingue tried to get the information they needed for this bill from the head of Correctional Service Canada and he complied. The minister, however, will not release the information to the committee, which is an affront to democracy. We really should expect such treatment of democracy by the government.

This summer I, along with the member for Papineau and the member for Saint Boniface, were interviewed by the media for a piece on decorum in the House during question period. We were asked as rookie MPs about our first impressions of Parliament in question period. Although the member for Papineau and I tried to offer constructive criticism, the member for Saint Boniface stated that question period should be cancelled altogether.

Question period is 45 minutes of pure accountability. It is the only time members have to ask the government questions and demand answers about what it is doing. This is what democracy is all about and yet a government member says that question period should be cancelled altogether.

I would note that later on in the article the same member stated that more committee work should happen behind closed doors and in the absence of media. Would that not be great? There would be no media, no record and no opportunity to ask questions.

[Joseph Volpe]

Who is the member on the government side who said that?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It was the member for Saint Boniface in answer to a question.

I believe that attitude is an affront to democracy but it is very much in keeping with what the minister's office is doing today, which is denying the committee access to information that is critical for committee members to make reasoned decisions, good decisions and decisions that are actually based on evidence and not just on scaremongering and fear tactics.

I will quote my colleague from Winnipeg Centre when he said that parliamentary committees were the backbone of our democracy. It is imperative that they be allowed to function with all the information they need to make good decisions.

I strongly support the motion by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to refer Bill C-36 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reviewing certain clauses but also possible other amendments that could be made in light of the fact that the office of the Minister of Public Safety has failed to provide the committee with information that it is entitled to receive.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would have commended the member's speech at third reading to members before we got to this motion.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was involved for many years in a shelter for battered women. I noted in committee that the Elizabeth Fry Society gave examples of 10 cases, 6 of which were women who murdered their abusive husbands, and, of those 6, 2 were found to be ineligible for early parole under the faint hope provision. Therefore, four out of the six were eligible based on the circumstances.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on that example or any other example of the kind of case where early parole under section 745 has been granted to indicate that we are not just talking about Clifford Olson.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing with us some information about what happened at committee and his experience working with women's shelters.

The crux of the issue is that we do not know what is happening and we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many victims may or may not be participating in these hearings. We do not know how many of these are granted on first or second attempt. We do not know what the average actual length of the sentence is. How are we supposed to make a sound decision without knowing all of those things? How are we supposed to make a good solid legislative decision based on the idea that there is something wrong so let us make a decision? It would not be a reasoned decision nor a decision based on evidence.

On the question of victims writing or presenting statements, or actually attending the hearings, my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh asked in committee whether any data was kept on that. The answer from Mr. Head was, “at the courts, no”. My colleague then asked, “Do you know anybody who keeps data on that”? Mr. Head replied, “I assume they would show up as a victim impact statement at the time of the hearings, so it would be with the courts”. However, we do not have this information. Why would we change legislation when we do not know if the change would actually impact anyone?

With reference to the Olson case, serial killing does not even fall under this. Serial killing is specifically excluded. Therefore, this whole trumpeting of Olson is not even what we are talking about here. It does not even fit within the purview of what Bill C-36 is about.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, a couple of Conservative members, one in particular, have referenced the motives of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh suggesting that this is a delay tactic. The House has twice acknowledged the work of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh as being thorough and also being someone who is very professional and very much a person working with other parties as well.

I would like to ask my colleague about that in the context of this. Is it perhaps that the Conservatives are afraid of this new evidence actually coming to committee and getting full scrutiny by not only committee members, but also the witnesses who could expose some of the weaknesses in their bill?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh knew that this could be an issue. I want to read from the transcript again because this is exactly what he was talking about before we even understood that the minister's office had this information. My colleague asked Mr. Head from Correctional Service Canada, “I'm assuming you're not going to be able to answer this next one, but I'm going to pose it anyway because I think before we vote on this we should have this information”. He then goes on to ask the question.

My colleague knew that this was information that we needed to have, whether it was our party, the Bloc, the Liberals or even the Conservatives who needed to have it. The public needs to have this information. It needs to be on the record and the government needs to be accountable to what is actually in that report.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, like so many other Canadians, I have been following this debate, not only in the House over the course of the last several hours, but over the course of the last several months. All of us are interested in establishing and maintaining the reputation of the country as one that respects the rule of law and has mechanisms in place in order to enforce it and maintain that observance.

We think that the observance of the rule of law as it emanates from legislative bodies like this one is really a hallmark of our civil society. It is one that renders us a truly compassionate and humanitarian society, because it means that we care for each other's well-being and that we take the measures necessary to ensure that that well-being is respected and nurtured by all citizens.

The second thing that has attracted me to this debate is of course the claims that the government is putting forward regarding this particular bill. As a partisan individual but also as a sincere Canadian, I have been looking at the argument that we need to have a tough on crime agenda. There is not anybody I know who does not want to be tough on crime. What everybody wants, though, is an expression of the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that we monitor behaviour, observe the law and observe the mechanisms in order to capture those individuals who fall outside those basic human requirements of observance.

One individual on the street today told me to say the following. We have legislation because we want to keep in check the fact that less than 1% of the population that does not agree with the conventions that we think make us civil with each other. I add that we need to be able to have the rules in place so that we can identify what it is that differentiates that less than 1% from the rest. I take that particular issue here. I realize that those figures were used grosso modo in order to project a view.

The government members have a tendency to use this expression very loosely and largely. Every time there is a difficulty in the House with legislation and the parliamentary agenda, out comes the rabbit called the crime and justice agenda. They do not move on it very quickly. These kinds of agenda items and proposals could easily be moved through the House if they were sincere about moving the agenda along and having an intelligent debate.

Through the questions of all opposition members, and I regret to say but not government members, I see a desire to get information so that we can make the appropriate decisions on behalf of Canadians who have entrusted us with being scrupulous about the kinds of conventions that we establish as Canadian law, the kinds of conventions that we indicate are reflective of Canadian values and society and the kinds of conventions that we put down for law enforcement and maintenance, not only in terms of punishment, but in terms of modifying behaviour.

Over the course of this last hour, I have been taken aback that government members have said that we shall not have the information we think we need in order to make the appropriate decision. They have told us to trust them. This is an open society and an open Parliament. Some would say that it is an adversarial environment, but the antagonism inherent in our parliamentary system is designed to ferret out the truth. If the government decides that it will keep the truth away from the prying eyes of the official opposition and other opposition parties, then it is diminishing the value of Parliament and its trust in democracy.

The hon. member for Halifax, who is a new member in the House, said that she thinks she is entitled to have information in order to make an intelligent decision. It is almost shameful that she would have to say it, but I applaud her for doing it. What did she ask for? I noted her questions. She kept saying “we have” or “we need”. I was not sure whether she was using the royal we on behalf of the government or the opposition.

Of course the royal we, the government, already has all the information that the member for Halifax wants shared with all committee members, that she wants shared by all parliamentarians. The royal we has that information and unfortunately, the royal we, the government, is withholding that information from the prying eyes of opposition members. What is it afraid of?

I noted that with great eloquence, my colleague from Mississauga South said, “Look, just answer the following questions”. They have been asked in committee as well. For example, how often has this faint hope clause been utilized in the last 10 years? Surely the government has that information. Surely the information gives the basis, the premise upon which the government is basing Bill C-36, and they may well be right, but at least share them with us.

We are thinking men and women and we can make an analysis on behalf of Canadians, the way all parliamentarians are expected to do so. We need to know how many times and how many people apply at the very first opportunity to have section 745 applied to them. How many times has that happened? Surely that is not offensive information. Surely that should not compromise national security. Surely that will not compromise the value of fairness that all Canadians expect to be shared among Canadians.

We need them to tell us how many times this first request has been granted. Surely the information is available. We are not flying by the seat of our pants, collectively. The government might be, but surely members of Parliament are not in the habit of doing that. At least it has not been my practice. From what I have seen in the last 21 years in this place, members of Parliament want to know the facts. They want to apply the facts and they want to have those facts tested against the scrutiny of other people's criticisms. That is why we get elected to this place. We do it not for ourselves. We do it for all those Canadians who are either in the seats or in front of the television, or reading and watching the criticisms as they develop in the debate.

I sometimes wonder whether the government is actually interested in debate. Certainly it does not appear to have an interest in sharing facts that it has already collected, so when colleagues here wonder why we are not privy to the same information that the government says is absolutely crucial in order to understand the impact of these bills, such as Bill C-36, I think that is an offence against parliamentarians. It is an offence against Parliament and it denigrates the concept of democracy.

Why? It is because all those who believe in democracy are not afraid of sharing the facts, because the facts give us an opportunity to rally around what we will define as truth, and that truth is that which encapsulates all of those Canadian values that are held up as a standard around the world. We do not give ourselves an opportunity to do that and we allow the government, in its own rather retrograde way, to say, “We make the decisions. To heck with the rest of you”.

That is not right. It is not parliamentary. It is not democratic.

Why will it not give us some of the basic facts that it already has? For example, it wants to paint everybody with the same brush. Why not give us the gender and the ages of all of those people who might be eligible for application of section 745?

We are not talking about those who are going to be given the faint hope. The process is very elaborate. It is very rarely applied. Why scare everybody into thinking that the process itself is wrong and therefore everybody who is in jail already is absolutely condemned to be there forever?

We believe in punishment. We do not believe that any crime should go unpunished. None of us in the opposition, from what I can tell, would suggest that the laws should be scoffed at. No, what we need to do is have an understanding of the balance between retribution and reform, between final punishment and an opportunity to change behaviour, but we want to make an intelligent decision. We need to know, for example, what the recidivism rate is of those who apply under this section.

The government has that information. Why will it not share it? Why is it so privileged that it cannot justify its own legislation with the facts? The government is afraid that people will actually think that it might be wrong, and that can only happen if there is a proper debate. I do not think the government should shut it down.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member will have a period of five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I understand the hon. member for Eglinton--Lawrence had the floor prior to the question period, but the time for his speech has elapsed so he is stuck, I believe, with questions and comments. There are five minutes of questions and comments available for him if anyone wishes to make a comment or ask a question on the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, whom I know very well from the transport committee, for missing his speech a little earlier. How does he feel about the government deliberately withholding information that should have been sent to the committee that was considering this bill? As the member is well aware, what transpired was that the government had information and allowed the clause by clause discussion to take place without providing that information that had been clearly requested by two members of the committee.

We have seen, in a wide variety of committees, the Conservative monkey-wrenching and trying to inhibit the work of parliamentarians. I wanted to ask the member how he feels about what we see transpiring at the justice committee and the result before us today.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, there are really two issues. One of them is the issue of the substance of the debate on Bill C-36. The other one is the one that addresses procedures in the House as represented by the motion by one of my hon. colleagues that addresses the issue of whether committees can function if the government deliberately withholds information.

I know that he will recall that a member of his own caucus gave an indication that, using the royal we, the government actually did have the information that it has not shared with committee.

No committee in this House can function properly and render services to the Canadian public if it is deprived of some of the basic information as requested for committee, as I outlined in my five questions, and others have as well. It speaks to the sense of forthrightness and honesty on the part of the government that it would withhold such information.

It is not qualifying information. It is objective data. It is data that members of Parliament can use in shaping their own assessments of whether they would develop a particular view contrary or pro to the government's bill. The government, however, has chosen to simply suggest that its views are the ones that will be debated, because it certainly is not offering or willing to offer any data to substantiate its position.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this really boils down to an alleged question of privilege.

Members are undoubtedly aware that a privilege needs to be raised at the first available opportunity. Does the member not agree that this matter should have been raised in committee when we went through clause by clause consideration of the bill?

However, it was not raised when we went through clause by clause of the bill. We passed a few technical amendments dealing with the translation of the French and English versions and then sent it back to the House.

Now we are here for third reading of the bill. Does the member from Windsor not believe that this motion is untimely given that if he felt so prejudiced by the lack of information he should have raised it during clause by clause consideration in committee?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any rule in the House procedures that would inhibit the right of any member of Parliament, who may not be sitting in committee or who may be sitting in committee, to address those issues once again in the House. That is why we have report stage and why we have third reading, and to then ask that the bill be referred back to committee in order to receive the information required to have a fulsome consideration of the issues at hand.

I think the hon. member may wish to make a point but I hope the point does not include withdrawing said information from the accessibility afforded members of Parliament for all other bills, including this one, when the bill comes back to the House. This is a legitimate request in a procedural attempt to look at all of the considerables in the bill.

I am sorry but I guess I fail to understand why the member would want to, along with the government members, deprive members of Parliament of the opportunity to get information.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is before the House for one simple reason. The government withheld information that the committee should have had.

It is very clear that the amendment brought forward by the very learned member for Windsor—Tecumseh comes as a result of a clear violation of committee privilege. His amendment says:

Bill C-36...be not read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 with a view to making any amendments which may be called for as a result of information undertaken to be placed before the committee by departmental officials on November 4, but which the office of the Minister of Public Safety failed to provide before the committee considered the bill at clause-by-clause stage.

The amendment is very clear. Even Conservatives should support it. Why? Because there are broader principles at work.

The parliamentary committee was endeavouring to do its work. It requested specific information. That information was provided by departmental officials and withheld from committee by the Minister of Public Safety. We are not talking about objective partisan information. We are talking about information that committee needed to do its work.

I have before me the letter that was just received. It was forwarded to the ministry a few days prior to the clause-by-clause discussion on the bill, which resulted in the bill we are debating today. In other words, this information was withheld by the government for up to a week and a half. It was only today, after the amendment was moved, that the government endeavoured to provide the information it had withheld.

That is why the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has been ranked year after year as the most learned and most informed member of the House of Commons, brought forward the amendment. The government hid information that committee needed in order to make the bill effective in what it endeavoured to do.

In this corner of the House the NDP always does its homework. We always read our reports. We always ensure we are well prepared. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh asked for specific information, and the Conservatives, rather than provide that information to make the bill an effective one, withheld it.

It is not just in the Afghanistan torture scandal that we see the withholding of government documents. It is not just on the Canada-Colombia trade deal. Information has come forward about a study that was commissioned by the Government of Canada. The government will not release it now because it shows that what the NDP has said all along was right, that the Colombia trade deal would not enhance human rights in Colombia but quite the contrary. My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona mentioned the gun registry report. This again was withheld by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives try to hide information. They try to keep information secret. They try to monkey wrench their own Parliament. They were elected as a minority government and rather than try to make government function, the Conservatives try to monkey wrench on every occasion. They try to withhold important documentation, important information, on every occasion. This is just one more example of how mean-spirited the Conservatives are when it comes to parliamentary work.

What did the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue ask for? They asked for very clear statistics and a summary dealing with the number of indeterminate offenders and the number of offenders subject to the 25 year restriction. They asked for valuable information for committee while it discussed clause-by-clause.

This is not some sort of high school. This is parliamentary business and clause-by-clause consideration makes a real difference on how the clauses are worded, whether the clauses would effectively do their work or not.

Why, for goodness sake, would the mean-spirited Conservative government withhold all that information from parliamentarians and then try to drive the bill through? When the information becomes public, we suddenly realize that these clauses need to be re-crafted, that the information was not provided, that it was withheld.

This is, as I mentioned earlier, not the first time the Conservatives have withheld information. This is systematic. This is a government that holds meanness and secrecy as paramount virtues, but that is certainly not what Canadians want or need. They want to see a Parliament that works. They want to see parliamentarians given the information. They want to see parliamentarians provided with that public information for which taxpayers have paid.

The government and taxpayer money is not some private piggy bank for Conservatives to do with what they may, that they can take government funds, taxpayer funds, and say that information belongs to them. The same way they cannot take the government funds that should be allocated on a governmental basis and put a big Conservative “C” on their cheques to show that it is not taxpayer money, it is not Canadians' money, it belongs to Conservatives.

That sense of entitlement will bring the Conservatives down. It certainly brought them down in New Westminster—Coquitlam. It is why their poll numbers are going down as well. Canadians see, tragically, that mean-spiritedness every day, whether it is the HST in British Columbia and Ontario or the general air of secrecy and mean-spiritedness of the government.

The information was withheld for a week and a half. It was provided to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh just a few short moments ago. Very clearly the committee was unable to get the information it required from the government, information the government possessed. We are not talking about information that was lost. We are talking about information the government had in hand and the Minister of Public Safety said no, that committee would not get this valuable information so it could complete clause-by-clause and have a bill that held together.

It is ridiculous and Irresponsible. There are many terms both parliamentary and unparliamentary that we could apply to this kind of mean-spirited strategy. Most Canadians do not accept the idea that taxpayer funds are Conservative funds, that taxpayer government information is Conservative information only. That is why this amendment is before the House and we will look to get Bill C-36 back to the committee to try to address the inaccuracies in the bill that were established through the government's own mean-spiritedness. I will not say incompetence because it knew full well what it was doing. It is not incompetence, it is mean-spiritedness when it withholds information from a parliamentary committee. It is also irresponsible, but that is the government we live under currently. I believe a lot of Canadians are waking up to that fact. Certainly people in British Columbia are waking up to the fact that the government is not on their side, and I think there will be some changes whenever the next election comes.

The amendment proposes to move the bill back to committee and fix it. When I spoke on the bill originally, I said that we believed firmly in an approach to the justice system that was based on four pillars. One of those pillars is ensuring victims' rights. I have my own bill in front of the House, which the Conservatives refuse to bring forward, that allows for victims' compensation. We believe very strongly in that principle of the public safety system.

There are other pillars too and this is where Conservative approach on crime legislation falls tragically short. It is not just the hypocrisy of bringing forward a bill on Colombia with a government that is inundated with connections to parliamentary thugs, parliamentary murderers and drug lords. This shows the clear hypocrisy that once outside Canada we can deal with anyone, no matter how many drugs they distribute, which hurt kids, or how many paramilitary thugs are out there killing innocent civilians. The Conservatives support that bill, which shows a pretty clear hypocrisy.

However, when we talk about the Conservative approach, it also has to have the pillars of crime prevention. It has to have the pillar of supporting community policing. It also has to have a pillar of ensuring that we have a working court system. Any evaluation of the approach of the Conservatives on crime has to be evaluated, taking those other pillars. This is a smart approach to crime, which the leader of the NDP and members of this caucus have put forward.

What have the Conservatives done? They have cut back and slashed crime prevention programs, even if they know, and we know, that every dollar invested in crime prevention saves $6 later in policing and court costs. It means no victims as well. They have not followed through on their promises for 2,500 police officers and have not even brought in the public safety officer compensation fund. On crime issues, they simply do not have credibility.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution to the debate on the amendment to revert the bill to committee so it can re-examine certain clauses, simply because the information was withheld.

The member was maybe a little too kind about how this occurred. It would appear to me that the officials and Correctional Service Canada should have had that information available when they were in committee. I do not understand, for instance, how it could possibly not be available when they are there to do this work in committee.

Then we had a situation where an RCMP report, having to do with the gun registry, was somehow allegedly kept behind by a minister of the crown. Now there is another case where information on this bill is kept behind. Is there a further case where information and documentation on Afghanistan detainees is being held back from committees?

There seems to be a pattern. Would the member care to elaborate on this apparent coincidence?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a systematic pattern of cover ups in that administration.

I know the member for Mississauga South will remember when the Liberals had a sense of entitlement and what Canadians did to punish them. The Conservatives now, in a few short years, have now reached that same level of sense of entitlement, that information belongs to them and them only, that they can cover up and withhold from the Canadian public, the press gallery and opposition members of Parliament important information that is part of what we need in a democratic society to move forward.

We are not Colombia, thank goodness, where labour leaders or aboriginal people are killed. We are in this country and the Conservatives have to respect the democratic foundation of our country and our institutions.

The member is absolutely right. We see a pattern of cover-ups and the withholding of information. That is deplorable and we are going to fight it in this corner of the House all the way.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having listened with great interest to my colleague's comments, one would think he was present at the meeting of which he speaks. It was a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

It is very apparent, when one reads the transcript of the meeting, that the member does not know what actually went on. In fact, if he had looked at the comments of his colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, he would have noticed the member was not sure whether this was an issue of deliberately withholding information or some other delay in providing information to the committee.

Yet the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is suggesting that the minister deliberately withheld information. He is quite incorrect. I would ask him to go back to the record, check it for himself, correct the record and confirm that in fact there is no evidence the minister deliberately withheld anything from the committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very clever attempt to deviate, and I thank the member for Abbotsford for his attempt.

There are two stages about which Canadians need to know. The first stage is in committee where the member for Windsor—Tecumseh asked those valid questions, as did the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. It was on November 4 when they asked for that information. It was supposed to go to committee. Then we found out that the information was not sent to committee. It was sent to the Minister of Public Safety, which is stage two.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is without reproach, as the member for Abbotsford well knows. He may try to tackle the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, but I will put the credibility of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh against the member for Abbotsford any time. The reason why the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is consistently ranked as the most learned is because he always checks his facts.

There is no doubt the information was withheld from committee and that is deplorable.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the amendment by my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, related to the operation of this debate at third reading.

The amendment before the House would send the bill back to the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights to reconsider clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 because the committee has not been able to do its work.

One of the responsibilities of a parliamentary committee studying legislation is to study the legislation in detail, clause by clause for each and every clause, to determine whether or not any amendments need to be made.

How does the committee do its work? It asks for witnesses. It asks for information that it needs to understand the reason and the rationale for a particular amendment before it can consider it fully. Members of the House in doing their duty asked for this information from the department. We understand that information was available.

I was not in the committee. I would say there is a very good chance that there were at least 290 or 295 members of the House who were not in the committee, because that is the way Parliament operates.

The committee is an agent of Parliament and does on behalf of other parliamentarians the serious work of investigating a bill.

The information that was being talked about is statistical information on the number of prisoners who are in jails, subject to various sentences. It is very important information to have in order for members to be able to understand the necessity or otherwise of the kind of amendments that are being proposed.

I gave a speech yesterday and talked about the number of prisoners we have in our prisons who are serving life sentences and the number of all the prisoners who have served life sentences over the last 15 or 16 years who have been given an opportunity to seek further parole and to in fact get parole. This is important information to have in order to understand the context of the amendments being proposed.

What has happened here is that the government has decided not to make that information available and we are now in the House discussing a bill at third reading, trying to do here in the House the work of the committee without the facts and information before us.

This is not something that should be done in the House. It is something that should be done in the committee. I think the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who sits on the committee, is proposing a very reasoned and very reasonable amendment, and as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster pointed out, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has a very significant reputation for doing his homework and for being knowledgeable and competent on matters affecting justice issues.

Therefore I have to accept that when this information is asked for to allow the committee to do its work, that is something that I should support.

The government claims to have some kind of monopoly or at least a belief in transparency and accountability. What we are seeing instead is an attempt to manipulate the work of the committee through the control of information.

We saw examples of that, as were referenced earlier, when we had the Minister of Public Safety failing to release an RCMP report relating to the gun registry until after a vote had been taken in the House. This is the kind of so-called transparency and accountability that we are getting from the government, the manipulation and control of information in order to try to influence what the public knows and does not know about the true facts and the reality of something so that the government can get its own way.

I do not think it is something that Canadians want to see in their government. They do not want to be manipulated. They do not want to be told one thing publicly while the true facts are kept hidden or not made available at the right time.

There are other instances of trying to manipulate a committee going on right now with respect to the Afghanistan committee. Information this committee needs in order to do its work has not been made available to it, yet the government wants to bring people in to agree with its political point of view without giving the committee a proper opportunity to have the basic information before it in order to conduct the proper inquiry and to ask the kinds of questions that need to be asked.

The government is insisting on putting the cart before the horse, just as it is doing here, saying we should continue to study and vote on the bill without having the proper information before the committee.

In the case of the Afghanistan committee, they are doing the same thing, saying that we want to hear from a certain individual because we think we will like what he has to say, but the committee will not have the documentary information that is required to properly consider and ask questions of the witness who is to come before it.

This is the kind of thing we have seen in the committees in the past. In fact I recall a couple of years ago, in the lead-up to the last election, when the government had a rule book on how to distort and disrupt the activities of committees, which the Conservatives used to make things difficult to operate. Then, over the course of the summer, they claimed that the committee system was not working and that Parliament was not working, and that was an excuse for them to call an election, which I do not believe the public wanted then either.

They do not want one now, obviously. We have been told time and time again. They did not want one then either, and perhaps they will not want one whenever it comes, but the fact of the matter is that the government has a history of using committees in a way that is contrary to accountability, contrary to transparency, contrary to the full and open access to information that true democracy relies upon.

This motion is not an attempt to delay anything. I am hoping we will have a vote on it very soon this afternoon, unless there are a lot of other speakers. We hope that this bill, as a result of that vote, will be sent back to the committee so that it can actually do its job. That is the purpose of this motion. It is not to delay anything.

This bill does not have any great urgency to it, to my knowledge and understanding. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. I do not see any hands up other than to get some water or assistance from the pages, but I believe that there is no great urgency for this bill. It can be sent back to the committee. The information can be provided. The committee can do its work and send it back to this House. That is something that is moderate and reasonable and should be acceptable to this House, and when we come to vote on that, I hope to find that is the case.

The Minister of Public Safety is the one being asked to provide this information. We understand that it is readily available. It is not something that is any more secret than the report of the RCMP commissioner, which the minister failed to make available before an important vote in this House, which I have to say surprised me a lot.

If the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for the public safety of the country and who is responsible for ensuring that people feel safe in their homes and on the streets, has a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our national police force, on an issue that is pertinent to the gun registry and to a vote that was to take place in this House, for him to sit on that and not make it available was shocking to me.

I have been around a long time in politics. I do not know if this is unparliamentary or not, but it was a very brazen act. I do not know if it is unparliamentary to say that. It certainly does not seem to be unparliamentary to do it, if the minister is able to get away with doing that in the face of an extremely important and well-attended vote across this country.

I hope that the actions of the Minister of Public Safety, in suppressing this report until after that vote had taken place and after the publicity had died down, are equally noted by the people of Canada. Suppressing the report that our national police force made available was a brazen affront to the parliamentary process, to an expectation that a government is reasonable, transparent and accountable to voters. For the House to have that evidence in front of it before that vote was taken was important, just as, I would suggest, having the information requested by this committee, promised to the committee, undertaken to be placed before the committee by departmental officials was important. It was not made available. It should be put before this committee, before the bill can come back to this House, for proper consideration.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from Newfoundland for his participation in this motion to hoist this bill and put it back to committee for further consideration.

As he probably knows, I sit on the committee and I think he needs to understand the chronology here.

If he is not aware, he ought to be aware that the witness in question, Mr. Head, the chief of Correctional Service of Canada, appeared before the committee on November 4. When asked for specific data regarding the faint hope clause, he said it would take a week or two to put it together, because it would involve having to go through a whole number of files.

Clause by clause occurred on November 16. Less than two weeks had passed.

I have said this a number of times today, but the hon. member is a lawyer so I am going to ask him this specifically. If the information was not available on November 16 when the committee did clause by clause, was it not incumbent upon the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to raise his objections then?

If he wanted the information to do clause by clause, he should have asked for it then. He should have asked for an adjournment. He should have kept the bill in committee until he got the information that he thought he needed, rather than raising this point at third reading.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked an important question. As he would know and those of us who have practised law over many years would know, our opponents are not perfect and neither are we. We do not always make the kinds of objections that our colleagues would expect us to make, or make them at the time or the place where our opponents would expect us to make them.

We do have a process here before us. We were considering the bill at third reading. It appears that this information is useful. We have a procedure by which this information can be made available to the committee and we have opportunity, so whatever needs to be done, can be done.

If there was a failure, as my colleague and learned friend, since he is a member of the Bar, has suggested, then we now have a way of fixing that and making sure it does not cause problems.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh responded to this earlier and said that in his view, he assumed that somehow all the committee members had just missed the information and that they were sure it had been sent. That was not the case, so it was detrimental reliance, if anything.

There appears to be a systemic problem here, that of the withholding from committees information that they need to be able to do their work. I would have thought that the officials would have come prepared to answer those questions, obvious questions that they have undertaken to provide that information subsequently, such as how many times the faint hope clause has been used in the last ten years. This is so fundamental to the bill and for the consideration of the bill that these are questions that need not be asked; they are automatic.

I would ask the member whether or not he believes that maybe there is little bit more here in terms of possibly a breach of the rules of Parliament with regard to deliberately withholding evidence and information from committees.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's suspicions. I certainly do not have enough information to make such a charge, but I do believe that the Conservatives have been rushing, hell-bent on bringing before the House as many pieces of legislation as possible to support some political campaign in which they would hope to engage suggesting that somehow or other they are tough on crime and that everybody else in the House does not support their point of view.

If they really believe that this faint hope clause is abused or overused or that it results in some significant problems, then surely we would expect them to bring the evidence to support those beliefs before a committee studying the very elements of the legislation that they hope to change. The fact that they failed to do that smacks of political motivation more than anything else. I agree with the hon. member. The way to correct that is to send the bill back to committee and get the information so the committee can look at it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

A recorded division on the amendment will be deferred until the end of government orders tomorrow.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to participate in the debate concerning Bill C-31, an important piece of substantive criminal legislation, with procedural paragraphs as well, that seeks to modernize the criminal procedure and make the justice system more efficient and effective.

Crime in Canada is constantly evolving. It is crucial that our criminal justice system evolves with it. The amendments proposed in Bill C-31 are the latest steps in our continuing commitment to tackling crime and ensuring the safety and security of our communities.

The bill contains some 40 amendments, developed in consultation with our provincial and territorial partners, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system who have helped us identify processes in need of updating and issues that require attention to keep the criminal law modern and up to date with more and more sophisticated criminals.

Given the limited resources available in the criminal justice system, it has become abundantly clear that we need to find better and more efficient and effective ways to respond to crime, and make better use of those sometimes scarce resources.

I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the amendments that the government is proposing in Bill C-31.

First is with regard to agents. With respect to the use of agents, or non-lawyers, the bill would allow the provinces to further monitor the quality of representation by agents of defendants charged with summary conviction offences.

Currently, agents who are not lawyers may appear and may examine and even cross-examine witnesses on behalf of defendants charged with summary conviction offences that carry a maximum term of imprisonment of six months or less.

For summary offences carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six months, agents may represent defendants only if they are authorized to do so in accordance with a provincially- or territorially-approved program.

Agents perform a valuable function, particularly, in northern and remote areas of Canada where native court workers acting as agents for defendants frequently provide assistance to defendants.

We must keep in mind, however, that serious consequences can arise even from a criminal conviction, and many criminal cases involve a significant degree of complexity.

In order to further promote adequate representation for defendants, who choose to be represented by non-lawyers, changes to the rules regarding agent representation would allow the provinces and the territories to set criteria and approve programs for the full panoply of summary conviction offences.

Amendments to the Criminal Code would allow jurisdictions to set criteria or approve programs which would serve as pre-conditions to representing defendants charged with summary offences that carry a maximum jail term of six months or less.

However, in jurisdictions where no programs have been approved and no criteria have been set for this category of offences, agents would still be authorized to represent defendants, as is the case currently.

The situation would also remain unchanged with respect to summary offences that carry a maximum jail term of more than six months. It would continue to be open to jurisdictions to approve programs or set criteria that serve as pre-conditions to representing defendants charged with these more serious offences. However, no agent would be authorized to represent defendants in jurisdictions where no programs have been approved or criteria have been set.

Finally, for any summary offence, it would always be open to agents to appear on behalf of defendants to request an adjournment in summary conviction proceedings.

Second, the bill deals with expert witness evidence.

Amendments in the area proposed in the bill are intended to improve the current regime to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to adequately respond to what is frequently becoming complex and highly technical evidence.

When expert evidence is to be presented at trial, the bill would create new remedies designed to encourage parties to comply with the regime's notice requirements, as well as better address situations of non-compliance.

Proposed new provisions also contain a list of factors which the court must consider in deciding whether to grant adjournments. Where the court refuses to grant an adjournment or reduce its duration, the proposed amendments would require the court to provide reasons. The bill, thus, would send a clear message as to the numerous considerations and significant challenges associated with properly responding to expert evidence.

Hybridization of an offence is the legislative process of converting a straight summary offence or a straight indictable offence into a hybrid offence. This process affords the Crown the flexibility to elect whether to prosecute an offence by way of summary conviction procedure or by indictment. Proceeding by summary conviction offers an expedited trial process and a lower penalty range, whereas prosecuting by indictment involves the possibility of holding a preliminary inquiry as well as a jury trial, and offers a higher penalty range.

The proposed amendments would allow the Crown to select the most appropriate procedure in light of all of the circumstances surrounding the case for six non-violent and specified offences, three of which are currently straight indictable offences and three are straight summary conviction offences.

Hybridization offers a means of ensuring that we make the best use of our courts' limited resources and that more elaborate proceedings involving preliminary inquiries and jury trials are reserved for only the most serious offences.

The hybridization of current straight indictable offences also benefits the accused as it allows the Crown, where appropriate, to proceed summarily in a more expeditious trial process and therefore a lower penalty range.

With respect to leaving the jurisdiction while under an order not to, individuals who flee a province in violation of a bail condition requiring them to remain in that jurisdiction creates special concerns for law enforcement and the entire criminal justice system. Their flight delays and in some cases defeats the course of justice.

The current response to this behaviour is the generic offence of failure to comply with conditions of release charges as enumerated under section 145(3) of the Criminal Code. However, this charge does not differentiate between these bail violations and other bail violations such as a simple breach of curfew.

In order to create a transparent criminal record and emphasize the aggravated nature of this type of bail violation, we propose to create a specific offence of failing to remain in the jurisdiction when ordered to do so.

The creation of this offence is but one part of the response required to the broader issue of enforcing so-called non-returnable warrants. It is not intended to solve the very real challenge of returning accused persons to face trial if they are arrested some distance from where an alleged offence occurred.

The challenge of distance is a practical one and is faced within large jurisdictions as well as within a single province. It comes down to the cost of moving people to where they need to be to stand trial for what they are accused of doing. This is an issue that must be addressed by the provinces under their responsibility for the administration of justice.

Our government is working with our provincial and territorial counterparts to develop practical solutions to address the broader issue of returning accused persons to the jurisdictions where a warrant has been issued against them.

In the meantime, the creation of this new offence is a step in the right direction. The proposal for the creation of this offence is the result of extensive discussions among federal, provincial and territorial officials led by British Columbia. The proposal was discussed and endorsed by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety at their meeting in September 2008.

The broader issue of non-returnable warrants is complex and a comprehensive solution will likely entail the allocation of significant resources and the development of best practices by provinces rather than further legislative amendments.

Federal, provincial and territorial officials are examining best practices to maximize the efficient use of available resources. Federal officials will continue to work with their provincial and territorial counterparts to identify long-term solutions to this very serious problem.

Currently, the telewarrant procedure is available only for certain warrants, authorizations or orders in respect of searches or seizures. Furthermore, the Criminal Code provides that telewarrants are only available where it would be impracticable for the police officer to appear personally before a justice or justice of the peace to make the application.

Given advances in technology and the trend over the past several years to introduce more technology into the justice system to allow, for example, remote appearances and the electronic filing of documents, expanding the number of warrants which can be obtained through the use of telecommunications simply makes good sense. It contributes to greater efficiency in the use of the criminal justice system's limited resources.

I would rather see police on the streets patrolling and working on investigations than travelling long distances to make an application in person for a warrant before a justice or a justice of the peace.

Included in the list of warrants we propose to make available through telewarrants are tracking warrants, number recorders, as well as production orders for documents and financial records.

In order to streamline the telewarrant process and to make it even more efficient, we are also proposing to remove the requirement that the officer demonstrate why appearing in person would be impracticable in situations where the telewarrant request produces a “writing”. The impracticable requirement will remain where the request is made orally by the police officer.

Next is access to telewarrants by public officers. Through this legislation we are proposing that provisions of the Criminal Code that authorize the obtaining of warrants by telecommunications be amended to include public officers in addition to peace officers. The police who are by definition also peace officers are solely responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While they may also enforce other federal legislation, the primary responsibility for the enforcement of non-criminal offences is typically given to individuals who are not police officers but who are designated under individual statutes either as peace officers or sometimes as public officers.

While the powers that can be exercised by these officers are limited to the context of the legislation under which they are appointed, the powers themselves are typically derived from the Criminal Code. The most commonly used power in this context is the search warrant under section 487. Pursuant to this section a warrant may be obtained by either a peace officer or a public officer whose duties include the enforcement of any act of Parliament.

Even though both peace officers and public officers enforcing legislation other than the Criminal Code may obtain warrants pursuant to section 487, the ability to obtain such a warrant by means of telecommunications is limited only to peace officers. As a result, public officers frequently find themselves in a disadvantaged situation in which they require search warrants but are not able to appear before a justice in a timely manner to obtain one. Examples include officers from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in remote agricultural areas and officers appointed to enforce the Canada Labour Code conducting investigations in relation to health and safety issues on offshore oil platforms.

The ability of such officers to obtain warrants under section 487 is the same as their counterparts who are designated as peace officers and their need to obtain them by telecommunications in a timely manner is equally compelling.

The proposed amendment will not in any way expand the powers that may be exercised by public officers but rather will give them access to the same means for obtaining authorizations for the exercise of those existing powers as is available to other officers able to exercise those same powers. It is in the interest of all Canadians to facilitate the efficient and effective enforcement of our laws by the people that we empower to do so.

Next is the Identification of Criminals Act, fingerprinting, photographing and other measurements. Bill C-31, when passed, would provide an amendment to allow the taking of fingerprints and to conduct other identification processes with respect to a person arrested for a serious offence as specified in the Identification of Criminals Act where that person is subsequently kept in lawful detention. Currently, the act provides that these powers may be exercised where the person is in lawful custody and is charged with or convicted of an indictable offence listed in the act.

A number of conditions must be met for the proposed amendment to come into play. First, the arrest, as any other, must be based on reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed or is about to commit an indictable offence. Second, the police officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary and in the public interest that the person be detained in custody until brought to appear before a justice. Only in these limited circumstances will police be permitted to proceed with the identification process without having to wait for the formal laying of the charge. In most situations the proposed amendments will only affect the point in time where the identification processes are performed.

If the person is ultimately not charged with an offence, or charges are withdrawn or as a result of an acquittal, police services will usually destroy fingerprints and photographs at the person's request. It is important to note that the courts have stated that it is not unreasonable for the police to retain prints where no request is made for their destruction or return.

The proposed changes to the Identification of Criminals Act will result in streamlining the identification process and avoid having to detain the person for an extended period of time while waiting for the actual charge to be laid before proceeding with the much need identification processes.

Now to corruption of foreign public officials and bribery. Finally, in support of Canada's international obligations, the bill contains amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.

One of the amendments would give nationality jurisdictions to Canada for offences of foreign bribery. Most of the time, these offences are committed in a foreign country. Currently, Canada exercises territorial jurisdiction. This allows Canada to prosecute an offence committed in a foreign country when there is a “real and substantial link” between the offence committed in the foreign country and the country of Canada.

Nationality jurisdiction would allow Canada to prosecute offences of foreign bribery committed outside Canada by Canadians, permanent residents of Canada and Canadian corporations without having to provide evidence of a link between Canada and the offence. This would facilitate prosecutions of foreign bribery cases.

In addition, we propose to add the word “selected” to the definition of the word “official” in section 118 of the Criminal Code, which applies to corruption provisions. Currently, this regime applies only to persons appointed or elected.

The Federal Accountability Act provides that the appointed process for some members of the public service include consultations with Parliament. Under this process, the name of a person “selected” for an office is made public before the person is actually appointed but the person is not an official under the current definition and, therefore, not subject to the bribery provisions until the legal appointment.

In addition, the Organization of American States, or the OAS, and the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, which Canada ratified in 2001, requires the criminalization of bribery to officials “who have been selected, appointed or elected”. The proposed amendments would correct this gap in the current law.

The bill contains many other amendments, such as those that would update the outdated prizefighting and parimutuel betting as recommended through consultations with our federal, provincial and territorial stakeholders, and other levels of government.

I trust that all members will give this bill the support that it requires. The amendments would contribute to the significant improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system that all Canadians are asking for. Criminals are evolving and becoming more complicated and sophisticated and the law must evolve to keep up.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a fairly large canvas. I know he did not get a chance to elaborate on many of the points so I will give him a chance to elaborate on what I think Canadians will find interesting and, in some quarters, disturbing. It is that people can have their fingerprints taken and retained upon being arrested.

It is a very large change in our criminal law but the member, who is a good lawyer and salesman, makes it sound as if it is a convenience, that it is doing the arrested person a favour. We are telling people who have been arrested that they can go home now but that we will keep their fingerprints for life.

Could the member be more specific on clause 39 of the bill which attempts to amend the Identification of Criminals Act by adding the words “after being arrested for” in addition to “charged with or convicted of” where fingerprints are rightfully taken and held? What kind of offences does he envision? Does he envision that the police forces will, upon application, expunge fingerprints taken from persons who are subsequently not charged or convicted?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and my friend, and I use the word deliberately, from New Brunswick. I always enjoy his contributions to the justice committee and I certainly compliment him on his contribution to this and other debates.

As he knows, the Identification of Criminals Act does not currently authorize police officers to fingerprint or photograph individuals in lawful custody until they have been charged or convicted. This often results in unnecessary delays and can prolong an accused individual's stay at the police station. The proposed amendments would streamline this process by adding the authority to fingerprint and photograph an individual who is in lawful custody following an arrest but not yet charged.

As the hon. member is no doubt aware, there are provisions in the Identification of Criminals Act that deal with these records subsequently if an individual is acquitted or has the charges withdrawn or stayed. He is quite right in his preamble that in many instances this evidence is to the benefit of the accused.

In certain circumstances, it would expedite the processing of individuals. They would not need to be detained until the appropriate authorities, whether they be police or the crown prosecutor, make a decision about charges. They would be able to process, get the evidence, allow the accused to be released on bail if there are no primary or secondary grounds to detain him or her and, ultimately, if the accused is not convicted of an offence, the appropriate applications will still apply.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat what the committee member just said, but I have the same question as the member for Moncton. I think that the member who just answered has never practised criminal law. In Canada, criminal law is based on the presumption of innocence. I will come back to that idea shortly.

We asked the minister this question. Furthermore it is one of the reasons we are so reluctant to support Bill C-31. I will come back to that during my remarks.

I would like to know why they want to make something a law when it is already working. The presumption of innocence exists, and one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. We also need to know how long an individual's anthropometric records will be kept on file.

Why do they want to make this a law? Have police services asked for this? Did someone, somewhere, ask for fingerprinting?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the police would.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if they followed the police recommendations with regard to the gun registry.

I want to pursue this question of the fingerprinting. The member for Edmonton—St. Albert is incorrect. There is nothing in this bill and nothing presently in the Criminal Code that requires police forces to do away with these fingerprints.

If an individual has his fingerprints taken but is not subsequently charged, which is what this bill would allow, those fingerprints stay on record. They are on CPIC and are available to all the police forces across the country even though the person was never charged. This bill does not correct that. It is one of its major flaws and probably the only part of the bill that I, like my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, have serious reservations about. Why does the government not have a provision in here to do away with the fingerprints?

I have spoken to a number of police officers and chiefs of police and the only explanation I get about why fingerprints are being taken before a person is charged is that it is for convenience. It is not for the convenience of the potentially accused person but for the convenience of the police.

When I explore that further, I do not find where the convenience is. I wonder if he could maybe explain that to me, if he understands the process. As I understand the process, it would not make any difference and it would not be any more convenient.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I did not mean to misstate the current state of law. What I meant to say, if I did not say it, is that police services will routinely destroy fingerprints and photographs at the accused's request when charges do not result in a conviction. I will concede that there is no statutory obligation for them to do so.

What I am suggesting is that many, if not most, police forces in Canada do destroy the fingerprints and photographs at the accused's request when charges do not result in a conviction. Because the member is a learned lawyer, he will know that courts, including appellate courts, have stated that it is not unreasonable for the police to retain the prints when no requests are made for their destruction or return upon the charges being dropped. The courts have authorized the retention of those records, including appellate courts in this country. I do not think that there is any gap or anything missing in the legislation with respect to this.

With respect to the expedition of processing of individuals, I answered that question previously for my friend from New Brunswick. This does expedite the process and allows individuals, who might otherwise be detained until the police can make a decision on whether or not a charge will be laid, to be released. If they have provided the evidence, fingerprints and photographs that have been requested, they can be released and, all other things being equal, can await the determination of whether there exists evidence to lay a charge.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill certainly does cover a broad range of issues but if I only have a short question I will stay with the fingerprints.

Given the member's statements, would it be his intent to address this issue of where they request to say that fingerprints would be taken on an arrest but if no charges are laid they would automatically be expunged from the records?

This amendment is to the Identification of Criminals Act. This has to be quite unnerving to those who would be arrested but never charged or convicted of anything. Would he support that change?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the members of the committee, including the two we have heard from, the members from New Brunswick and Windsor, may be proposing such an amendment at committee and I look forward to that debate at that time.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is a very interesting bill.

I am pleased to be here today to say a few words about the challenges related to justice.

As hon. members know, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was a great pleasure for me to join that committee following my first election in 2006.

In the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, many concerns have been expressed about the victims of crime. Sometimes the law works, but other times, it does not.

It is in the interest of the entire country and the general public that I want to say a few words about Bill C-31.

I speak to people in general about this bill and about the system of justice in general, because it does not matter what riding one is from, people have concerns. Whether it is about victims of crime, whether it is about crime rates, or whether it is about the safety of their community in general, they look to the justice system for explanations.

I have been here since January 2006. I have never known government; I have never known what it is like to be on the government side. I have never been in the government lobby to even know what it looks like. The promised land, I have not seen.

I do know, however, what the new Conservative government in 2006 did with respect to justice issues and it did not lessen the anxiety. As a team, the Conservative justice group did not lessen the anxiety of the general public In Canada. It did not make Canadians feel safer. In fact what it did, which really has not stopped, with a series of nightly television station visits, it has put the public into a state of anxiety beyond anything that ever existed before.

I know this is not a controversial bill. I am saying that with respect to a fairly non-controversial bill, nine-tenths of which I think I could support. Imagine what I would say with some of the legislation that was clearly designed for the five o'clock drive-by photo op and had very little to do with fundamental change to our criminal law that would give everybody in the House and the people they represent a higher sense of security.

There is one truth in all of these justice issues that is so self-evident it needs not be said. Every member in this House wants his or her community and all Canadians to feel safe. Every member of this House wants an increase in the perception and reality of public safety.

Mr. Speaker, what would you do if you were in charge of the criminal laws of Canada? Most people would expect that you would listen to law enforcement. Most people would expect that you would talk to the attorneys general and premiers of the provinces and territories. Of course you would talk to the people and you would talk to committees and all that sort of thing.

Police forces across the country have been asking for various things, but at the top of their list, they have been asking for more police officers. It really has not been delivered by the government.

Attorneys general across this country have been asking for modernization of the Criminal Code in general, and specifically with the tools of investigation for crimes across the country.

The aspect of Bill C-31 which is wonderful is the modernization of the telewarrant aspect. It is a great thing, but if I look at the big clock of years, I have been here three years and ten months, and it was evident three years and ten months ago that attorneys general were asking for that modernization, and here we are almost four years later.

According to the words in the government's lead-off speech, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert mentioned that the government is enacting recommendations in part from a conference of territorial and provincial attorneys general with the Minister of Justice of Canada in 2008. We are still moving very slowly on what are very important amendments to the Criminal Code.

I remember very well just this spring that Wally Oppal, the attorney general of British Columbia, made the plea for much more modernization of the Criminal Code to give those in law enforcement the tools they need.

I opened my debate on this bill by saying that much of this we can support. Much of it has been much needed. Why did it not come sooner? People in Canada are wondering why.

The government prefers to go to an evening television station to talk about a law that it may introduce instead of getting to the boardrooms of the attorneys general across this country and putting into effect simple modernization of the criminal law. Why not sooner for the modernization of telewarrants?

As I say, there are some very good points in this bill and there are a great deal of items that are housekeeping in nature.

I am going to give a brief overview of some of the highlights of the bill. I am also going to spend some of my time floating some very serious questions about the aspects of fingerprinting and about the aspects of the enforcement of warrants in extraterritorial jurisdictions.

I am also going to highlight some new areas in which people not so much in law enforcement but in the tourist industry and in the municipalities across the country are looking for modernization. Those are the definition of prize fighting and parimutuels.

I was the mayor of a city. I know how important it is on the one hand to secure a community, keep it safe, keep the feeling of safety with respect to police and the laws, but also with respect to tourists and civic activity issues.

It is interesting to see that this bill has a number of items that can be seen as housekeeping, that can be seen as good for the economy, that can be seen as modernizing language. Then, almost as is done in the United States, there is a multi-clause bill and hidden in it is a big truck.

The truck is the issue of fingerprinting anyone who has been arrested and disguising it as somehow being a convenience to the person who has been arrested. Never mind being a good citizen, the person will be fingerprinted and photographed. Those records will stay in the database forever. This is a means of making sure that the good citizen is not inconvenienced in the evening. The good citizen may go home and enjoy the rest of his or her life being part of a public record. Obviously, I am talking about the fingerprinting aspect of the bill.

It seems passing strange to me because we have just had a fairly rigorous preliminary debate with respect to the elimination of the long gun registry.

Many of the people in my riding who were not fans of registering guns I do not think would be fans of having an extension of the government's arm into aspects of fingerprinting and photographing people who have been arrested for an offence and subsequently acquitted, let go or not charged.

It would seem to me that the same people that many of the Conservatives on the other side call ordinary good folk in general would believe in is the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty, that big brother should not in an Orwellian sense keep records forever of people who have never been charged with anything. That strikes me as something that Conservatives cannot believe in.

We are going to test it at committee. We are going to see what exact allegations, crimes or the actual offences are that would allow the police to do this. This is what committees are for. Contrary to some of the discussion in Parliament today about the justice committee, the justice committee works very well. I think the committee will dig into this. Perhaps we will schedule some offences. Maybe we will say that it is important to do this in terms of someone who might be a flight risk, someone who might escape the confines of the country. Maybe that is a good idea, I do not know.

However, I have seen nothing in the legislative summary, the bill itself and I was certainly not reassured by the words of the member for Edmonton—St. Albert that it will not apply to every offence, that in every case where someone is arrested and before the person is charged there will be a photograph and a set of fingerprints taken of the person.

It strikes me that if there is not an explanation as to the seriousness of those types of offences or the extenuating circumstances, then this is something that we as a party cannot support.

There may be an argument given by the government on this and we are yet to hear from it on this in full, that we should move to a system that every citizen in Canada, every visitor to Canada, every person here on a visa should submit records of their fingerprints and a photograph for the easy identification by government officials of who they are, where they have been and what they are doing. I cannot see this as something that Conservative members would really jump up and embrace. I would like to see them go home to their constituencies and say that the government is going to start fingerprinting and photographing everyone just so the government knows where everyone is. I cannot see it, but we will see in committee.

I wonder why in this large canvass of Bill C-31 it has been decided to insert this Trojan horse of fingerprints for all. Perhaps “fingerprints are us” could be the justice department's new motto, its internal slogan.

On fingerprinting we certainly have had some objections already. It is not just me who would suggest that there is some concern.

There are concerns. Clayton Ruby, a member of the Ontario Bar Association and someone who is well known in Toronto, said in an article, and I quote:

Providing fingerprints is self-incrimination and the Constitution protects us from this. The line that is drawn is when you are charged. And to allow police to compel you to incriminate yourself before that moment is open to abuse.

On a website, as reported recently in The Province newspaper, it was said:

The proposed amendment requires anyone who has their fingerprints and pictures taken to apply to have them destroyed. It does not require the police to comply with the request, nor do they have to explain why they have declined.

So, once you're on record, it's basically permanent. Those who fall back on the pathetic excuse of, “well, the cops wouldn't have arrested you if you didn't do something wrong,” wake up.

That is not an esteemed member of the bar, but it is a person out there who has seized the sense in perhaps slowing down the process of the Conservative aim to have us all fingerprinted and photographed.

There is another element to a person having his or her fingerprints and photograph taken upon arrest. There is the aspect of retention. My friend from Edmonton—St. Albert again, when the question was put to him directly, could not give us a comforting answer that those records would be released or expunged in the event that there were no charges. What he did was cite courts of appeal cases that said courts are allowed by law to keep those records. They have no obligation to give them back. It is really not a question of once they have them; the question is, why did they get them in the first place? We have to give this a very thorough examination at committee.

Enough on fingerprints. There is one other disturbing element that I will raise now, but as I say, I am generally in favour of the legislation. This element has to do with the aspect of people under warrant for arrest who have been accused of a crime. They are charged in New Brunswick and they are under warrant for arrest in New Brunswick for not having attended at a court date in New Brunswick. Let us say they go to British Columbia. Perhaps economic reasons propel them to go there. Perhaps they are under some mistaken belief; maybe they had a lawyer who did not inform them properly, but they are under a warrant. They show up in British Columbia. This new piece of legislation will not only ensure that people in large urban centres will be sent back to face what they are accused of in their home province, which is all fair and just, but it will ensure that they will have a penalty on top of that.

I understand and sympathize with, for instance, Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu who has said that the main effect this would have is a disincentive for people to leave. That may be the case.

I am looking at the committee to examine the incidences of this happening. In Vancouver alone, statistics suggest, for instance, that 53 people have been arrested in Vancouver and 35 were sent back to their provinces since the Vancouver Police Department instituted a program dubbed as Con Air. This allows the Vancouver Police Department to gather up people under warrant, and ensure that those warrants will be enforced by sending them back to the provinces in question.

The unintended consequence of this in a time of budgetary recession is that Vancouver, Calgary and other places might incur fairly extensive expenses by making people return to the jurisdictions from which they came or in which they were charged. There has been no discussion on this bill or at any intergovernmental level of who would pay the costs of that.

There is a reason I have some preliminary worry about this. I mentioned the example of the fairly innocent person who is probably facing a larger offence by ignoring the warrant than the actual offence from which it came. I am concerned by comments particularly from the Conservative side throughout my time in being interested in politics that go toward not having respect for people who come from other parts of Canada. I do not need to talk about the former mayor of Calgary. I do not need to talk about comments from the Prime Minister with respect to a culture of defeat. I am a very proud maritimer, an Atlantic Canadian. It is very insensitive for any politician to say anything disrespectful about people from other parts of this country. When leaders say those things, it is very disheartening and it does not make the country meld together the way it should.

This aspect of the extraterritorial warrant has to be handled at committee with respect and with good back-up evidence as to why this should be done. The efficacy of it has to be certainly examined. With that caveat, we will look at that aspect very thoroughly.

Some of the modernizations I spoke of earlier go to what may not seem like a justice issue, but to the updating of definitions with respect to prize fights. It may be interesting only to a lawyer that the definition of prize fight comes just before the sections on terrorism in the Criminal Code. In any event, people may not know that prize fights, as defined by the Criminal Code, are not permitted in the provinces unless they are part of an exception.

Last night in Moncton, New Brunswick, over 12,000 people attended our new outdoor stadium to receive the Olympic flame. It was a wonderful event. Moncton is the Indianapolis of Canada in promoting sports activities. We have a fourplex arena, the largest and the best east of Montreal, and a coliseum that houses our Moncton Wildcats. It is known as a sports venue place.

The competition that brings Canadians together is evident in the House when members of the Quebec Junior Hockey League, coming from outside Quebec, can beat teams from Quebec City proper. That is a wonderful thing about Canada, that the Moncton Wildcats can beat teams that come from other parts of Canada, including Quebec, in the Quebec Major Junior League.

The definition with respect to prize fight must be modernized to understand that we do not live in the Marquess of Queensberry rules. I am looking at some members now who probably know all about altercations, but we are talking about serious altercations involving the hand and the foot. Often politicians use the foot but in a different way.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

In the mouth.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

In the mouth, as my colleague from Newfoundland says, Mr. Speaker.

The real point is my mayor tells me there are big tourist dollars in promoting the ultimate fight championship definitions that are proposed to specify the exemption in prize fights, which are currently not in this legislation, in section 83 as amended. It is also important that boxing clubs across our country do quite a bit in the realm of early intervention in dealing with our youth. They have a specific definition of what their sport entails.

I wish the government had arrived at the housekeeping aspects of this bill a lot earlier. It has wasted a lot of time and a lot of TV tape in bringing forth statements about laws when it could have dealt with the housekeeping aspects.

With regard to fingerprinting, I am looking at the chairman of the justice committee. I hope he understands that these two issues, the extraterritorial warrants and fingerprinting, must be examined carefully, with caution and with sensitivity, keeping in mind that we are from different parts of Canada. We need to have respect not only for the law, but for each other and for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Search and Rescue; the hon. member for St. John's East, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Western Arctic, Arctic Sovereignty.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to debate at committee if in fact the bill does get to justice committee. Maybe a separate committee will be established to look at this because many different issues are addressed in the bill.

I appreciated the member's general support of the intent of the legislation. I believe the process at committee will be helpful in discerning whether some of the fingerprinting initiatives that we hope to move forward are what Canada needs.

My question for my colleague is on the last point he raised, and that has to do with looking at the whole issue of prize fighting. The provisions in the Criminal Code are hopelessly out of date and he has as much as admitted that.

Has he had a meeting with representatives of the UFC, which represents the new type of martial arts fighting? Has he had a chance to look at its proposals for legislative reform, which it hopes the committee will look at when we deal with Bill C-31? Does he approve of the proposals that the UFC has brought forward in terms of revising the definition of prize fighting?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I have. The member, who is a very good chairman of the justice committee, will know that members are often visited by people who want to press law amendments on us.

In particular, a proposal to further define mixed martial arts, which is really what we are talking about, could be read at the committee and could probably be accepted by most committee members as just modernizing how we define prize fights in the first place.

I looked for the last amendment to section 83, which was in 1985, and then some years before that. As I mentioned, the definition has not grown with the evolution of sports, which causes a problem for some local municipalities and provinces with respect to licensing events, insuring them and having legally advertisable and profitable events for communities that are sanctioned by law.

I very much look forward to looking at that at committee and seeing whether it could be supported.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I would go further and say, as a member of the Olympic committee, that new Olympic disciplines such as karate and judo have been added. These disciplines were not included around 1985. This absolutely needs to be updated. I think we could easily find some common ground on that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The question I have for the hon. member is on fingerprints. I would like him to elaborate on that and I will come back to this in a few moments. With respect to fingerprints—or anthropometric records in the jargon of the legal system—in what he has seen in his practice or in what he knows in his field, does he believe that police tend to return these anthropometric records—that is, photos and fingerprints—to an individual when they know that no charges will be laid against him?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member, who also serves on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. His question conveys the concern he has.

I will quote the Minister of Public Safety who introduced this bill at a press conference.

He said, in the process, if the people wind up not being charged, then they have the right to ask that their fingerprints and photographs be deleted from the system. Would it be like returning something to a store? Would there be a service desk at the police station? People could go to the desk, say that they were not charged and ask to get their photographs and fingerprints back.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert said that the courts of appeal say that once we have them, we can keep them. We all know police officers, and we all like them. However, we also know that once they have a record on somebody, it increases their tools to do their jobs. Therefore, they are very unlikely to ever give those fingerprints and photographs back.

This is why we have to be sure that they are taken in a case that makes sense. It has to do with flight risk, the seriousness of an offence, perhaps, investigative techniques that make it difficult for the crown to prefer charges right away. These clearly are circumstances we have to get into at committee.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the prize fighting amendments.

Did my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe see a piece in the Toronto Star this weekend, or if he is aware of it? It stated the Ontario government was very much opposed to expanding the definition of prize fighting. It appears that it is specifically opposed to letting the UFC into Ontario.

A former premier of Ontario, who is a member of my colleague's party, is the chief lobbyist for it. Has the member had contact with it and could he advise as to his own position on the expansion and allowing UFC into Ontario? It appears a number of the other provinces are allowing the UFC in now because they interpret the code differently. Is he aware of that? Where does he stand vis-à-vis the position of Ontario?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I see my friend from York South—Weston behind me. I come from Moncton, New Brunswick. I am fairly close to an attorney general and I speak to him about things. He seems to think and the mayor of Moncton certainly thinks that the proposal to amend legislation and modernize it to reflect what goes on out there, in terms of events, seems to make some sense.

What I said earlier about unifying the country may not jive with this comment. I do not check the Toronto Star, or Toronto newspapers, or Ontario newspapers or politicians every morning when I get up, but we will take it under advisement at committee. Windsor in particular is a gateway to Canada. We have to be clear that Windsor, which is part of Ontario for now, has to be in step with the rest of Canada. Windsor is where everything starts in terms of activities and promotional literature.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will scour the bill to find out what documentary evidence is necessary to do a proper committee review and request it now, because it might take that long to get it.

At the beginning of his speech, the member mentioned that this appeared to be an omnibus type bill with a lot of elements to it and a lot of issues. Were the members of the committee offered a briefing on this bill in advance so they could look at some of these preliminaries and so the quality of the debate could be more incisive rather than interrogatory?

It seems to me to be such a broad issue that any government intent on having good legislation would ensure that all hon. members were well prepared to participate in debate.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in brief, no. When I arrived here in 2006, we used to insist on departmental briefings. Some bills are pretty short. This is a pretty large bill. I can only take my friend the chair across the way as speaking a bit for the government, suggesting there might be a legislative committee, which is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

We should have had a briefing. I hope we will before we get to this. Bill C-31 is not on our work plan before Christmas. The hon. member's usual sage advice will be taken into consideration when we meet.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here to speak to a bill for the second time today, but first of all, I must say I will probably be less critical of Bill C-31 than I was, and I will continue to be, of Bill C-36, if that bill ever comes back to the House. That being said, this is an interesting bill, and the Bloc Québécois will support it so it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a more thorough study.

I hear some Conservative Party members applauding. I invite them to save their applause for five or ten minutes from now. I am not sure if they will still want to applaud, but for now, I cannot help but notice their applause, and I think it is interesting.

I do not know why, but the Conservatives tend to insert what we call a poison pill into an interesting bill. We were reading the bill, which has about 30 pages and 40 clauses, and everything was going well until we got to clause 39, which would amend the Identification of Criminals Act. I will come back to this. Our criminal law includes a very important principle, which the Supreme Court has reiterated on a number of occasions, and that is the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury or a judge who knows the law, on the basis of evidence introduced before his peers. The Supreme Court has said this time and time again. I would remind the members that we do not believe that subsection 2(1) of the Identification of Criminals Act can be amended, because that would go against the presumption of innocence.

I will take this argument further. The main downside to this bill is one small paragraph on the last page of the bill that seeks to amend paragraph 2(1)(a) and that reads as follows:

(a) any person who is in lawful custody after being arrested for...

That means that this paragraph would apply to everyone who is arrested for any reason. People could be fingerprinted and photographed from now on. It is clear that, if the government maintains its position and insists on amending this section, we will fight to the finish to vote against this bill and against this clause, and it is clear that we will try to have this clause removed from the bill in committee. We hope to do so with the support of the Liberals and my NDP colleague.

Why remove this clause? Because it would open the door to all sorts of abuses. My colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert can say what he likes, but you have to know the territory, as we say, you have to have argued cases and know criminal records to know that the police have a tendency to go overboard. Often, they are willing to keep a record on anyone for anything. Obviously, this is not always true, and it is not true of all police officers. But there are safeguards in place, and one of them says that a person cannot be fingerprinted until he or she is charged with or convicted of an offence. That means that at present, an individual who is convicted or who is charged—because the person has to be charged—can be photographed and fingerprinted.

In general, this is how it works. A person receives a summons requiring them to appear in court. They must plead guilty or not guilty and then they may be fingerprinted and photographed.

This process must not change and we will do everything in our power to ensure that it does not change because it is the fundamental right of an individual to be presumed innocent until found guilty. This presumption of innocence is extremely important in our criminal law.

It is unfortunate because it overshadows good intentions. I come from an area 600 km north of Ottawa that is regularly visited by the itinerant court. I also argued before this court when I was a lawyer. The itinerant court travels to Inuit and Cree villages on the shores of James Bay, Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay as well as in regions such as ours.

I will return to the main point of Bill C-31: telewarrants. We believe that the process must be modernized. Police forces are quite right to ask that telewarrants be easier to obtain and that they be made available more quickly.

For the benefit of our audience, telewarrants are search warrants or other types of warrants. The first example that comes to mind is this. Someone is stopped after a motor vehicle accident. The police approach the vehicle and smell alcohol. The person is in his car and unable to give his consent because he is unconscious or too drunk. In any event, he must be taken to hospital. The police accompany him to hospital and obtain a telewarrant over the phone. A justice of the peace, located in an office somewhere in Quebec, will authorize the taking of a blood sample from the individual to determine his blood alcohol level. We agree with the legislator that this telewarrant process should be retained and made more accessible.

The police are right. At present, in 2009, if they suspect that a criminal act has been or is about to be committed, and if they must quickly obtain a search warrant, they have to go before a judge, have him sign a document and then proceed with the search.

We think that the bill is a good idea, because it would modernize the Criminal Code. Even though I am a criminal lawyer, I think that we need to make it easier for police officers to do their jobs and gather evidence. One way of doing this is through telewarrants.

We feel that improving access to telewarrants is a good thing. Police officers must have the possibility of obtaining telewarrants, whether or not they are written or used.

This bill deals with many other things, such as fleeing to another province, and the amendment in response to the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Six Accused Persons, which amends section 184 of the Criminal Code. There were a number of amendments to be made to the Criminal Code.

There are many details. This bill is long and very technical, but it is interesting. However, there are two main points I want to talk about. The first is representation by an agent, or non-lawyer.

I have a hard time accepting that an agent could represent a client in court, when the client is being charged with a summary offence. The Bloc Québécois has a hard time agreeing with this proposal for a number of reasons.

Representation by a lawyer is extremely important, especially in criminal law. When it comes to appearing, we could probably make some concessions. But I have some serious problems with having an agent question and cross-examine witnesses for and on behalf of the defendant.

I have the same concerns as the Quebec bar, which has provided us with information on this subject, saying:

The Barreau du Québec is concerned that this proposal, as written, causes confusion about the meaning of “agent”, and could lead to lawsuits against individuals for illegally practising the profession.

I am also very worried about this proposal. In Quebec, lots of people have acted as lawyers and have represented individuals, such as claimants before Quebec's occupational health and safety commission. The same thing has happened at the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. People with no legal skills whatsoever have represented others before the board of referees because, they said, they were friends of the claimants. If that same system were to apply to the Criminal Code, we would start having serious problems.

I am very surprised that the government would propose such a thing at the provinces' request. I can confirm that the Quebec bar does not support this proposal. I would be very surprised to hear that the Government of Quebec requested this kind of third-party representation. I believe that the committee will have to pay special attention to the issue of representation by lawyers when it comes time to study this bill.

The other point I want to raise has to do with the amendment to section 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act. I want to discuss this because I think it is important not to create this option. Above all, we must not give the police unrestricted power to take a person's fingerprints and photograph, because there is no telling where that information might end up. Such records, known in our jargon as anthropometric records, could make their way to the Canadian border, to customs, or elsewhere.

If that happened, an individual who has never been charged with anything might be prevented from leaving Canada. The police might go so far as to arrest people for dangerous driving or a highway safety code violation, and tell them to go to the police station for fingerprinting and photographing. The police might even have photographic and fingerprinting equipment with them at the scene of the arrest. I think this goes very, very far. We have to create a process for destroying the fingerprints and photos of people who are not charged with anything and will never be charged, people against whom no complaint or charge will be filed.

At present, not only do we have an individual's fingerprints and photograph—the anthropometric record also included that information—but we know that genetic records can be kept on people who have given a drop of blood, saliva or a single hair for the purposes of DNA identification. We must not forget that.

However, section 10 of the DNA Identification Act contains a provision for the destruction of genetic material.

We think this clause needs to be amended to include the destruction of photos and anthropometric records if no charges are laid within a given timeframe.

One needs to have practised criminal law to understand that it is very rare for clients to come back to us when no charges are laid to ask that their fingerprints and photos be destroyed, even when they have been lawfully taken.

When someone is acquitted of the charges laid against him, his fingerprints and photos should be destroyed automatically, but that is not the case at this time. That is not what happens. Needless to say, this certainly is not more likely to happen if we allow the Identification of Criminals Act to be amended.

We believe that the title of the legislation says it all. It is called the Identification of Criminals Act. So why should someone who has not yet been declared a criminal be forced to submit his photos and fingerprints? In our opinion, this makes no sense, and we find this extremely prejudicial for someone who is arrested.

We think this bill is important. It is an interesting bill and I will close by talking about fighting. I listened to my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and also to my colleague from Windsor. They asked a very important question. There is prizefighting and now throughout the United States there is this type of extreme fighting where violence is involved, of course, but also bets and so forth.

However, we have to be careful because there is very well organized fighting. We know about boxing, but in terms of the Olympic movement, judo and karate have now been introduced. These are extremely interesting sports that are gaining in popularity in Canada.

Judo and karate events are organized under the supervision of national and international agencies. International agencies including the International Olympic Committee, the International Judo Federation, and the World Karate Federation have asked us to ensure that the Criminal Code is amended. I will give an example related to this type of fighting. Canada cannot host the world cup of karate or judo because under the Criminal Code, such fighting is illegal.

We think it is important that this be amended in the Criminal Code. That is what a number of provinces and Quebec are asking for. Judo-Québec, the Fédération québécoise de karaté, the National Karate Association of Canada and Judo Canada, following representations by the International Olympic Committee, which would like to hold major competitions in these two sports, cannot take part.

I see that my time is almost up, but I will close by saying that this is an interesting bill that we will have to address in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There are two points, and I have mentioned them, but I think it is important that we respond to the requests and modernize the Criminal Code

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue a specific question, I want to say that with respect to a question posed by the member for Mississauga South with respect to briefings, it is my understanding that the critics of all the parties did receive briefings with respect to this bill, but, of course, neither he nor the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe are Justice critics. However, I believe their Justice critic, also from New Brunswick, would have received the briefing.

With respect to the speech by the member opposite, who sits on the Justice committee and who likes to point out that he is an expert in criminal law and that I have not practised criminal law, I have a question with respect to agents.

I am troubled, quite frankly, by his description of the perceived flaw in the bill with respect to court agents. He indicated that the Quebec Bar Association would be opposed to this, and that should be of no surprise to anyone. Bar associations protect lawyers and they protect the businesses and clients of lawyers. However, does the member not believe that individuals who cannot afford lawyers are still entitled to some representation? Court agents are very valuable in remote places, in northern remote localities and native populations where native court workers give sage advice to individuals who have trouble navigating their way through the court process.

Nothing in the bill precludes an individual from retaining a lawyer if he can afford one or if legal aid will provide one. It just expands the mandate in areas and situations where the provinces and territories can put programs in place to expand the use of paralegals or what they are commonly referred to as agents.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this clarification because that was not my understanding when I read the bill and comments. However, having seen and worked with them myself, I can assure my colleague that paralegals do exist, even in Quebec, especially in aboriginal communities, especially among the Inuit.

It should be understood that paralegals provide advice as my colleague stated quite correctly. They provide helpful advice, for example, what time to appear in court. They say: “Do not forget to go to court at such and such time”, and so forth. That is not what the bill states. In any event, from what I have read, these people can also ask questions. And that has left me wondering.

Having been a lawyer for more than 30 years, I can say that the Criminal Code and the decisions in case law are so complex that they are difficult to navigate even for a lawyer who does not go to court regularly. As for paralegals, I agree with that. I think it is a good idea, that they should continue and that there should be more in certain areas.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member does good work on the justice committee and, more often than not, we disagree on the bills that are before us, but he is a hard-working member of the committee and he did raise the issue of prizefighting and the fact that Bill C-31 would modernize how we deal with prizefighting in Canada.

As members know, that portion of the Criminal Code has not been revised for decades. The member knows that from his own province of Quebec heralds a world champion of mixed martial arts, Georges St-Pierre. The member also referred to the fact that the Olympics include judo and karate. He forgot wrestling but that is also one of the elements of mixed martial arts.

The member was not able to clearly state whether he supported changes that would allow mixed martial arts to take place in Canada, so I would ask him if he could clarify that and take a position on it here in the House.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several years of experience working on the Olympic committee and at the international level, so I will answer briefly. Wrestling is not a combative sport. According to the Criminal Code, combative sports are fights involving fists. That is why wrestling is not considered a prohibited combative sport under the Criminal Code. That is why the World Wrestling Championship was held in Montreal and is sometimes held in Canada.

As to the other sports, I agree. As a former member of the Olympic committee, and having helped introduce karate and judo as Olympic sports, I believe that if we want our athletes to develop, we have to allow these kinds of competitions in Canada, competitions like world cups, nations cups and world championships. Right now, because of the Criminal Code, we cannot host the world judo or karate championships or world cup judo and karate competitions because that would violate the Criminal Code. It cannot happen for a number of reasons. Insurers do not want to insure these events, and cities do not want to host them because they are against the Criminal Code.

That is why we think this Criminal Code amendment is a good idea.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague about the fingerprinting issue and the taking fingerprints prior to charges being laid, which this bill would authorize.

Since the member has perhaps the greatest amount of criminal law experience in the courts of any member in this House, does he see the argument that somehow this is more convenient for the police and will make their job easier? I must tell him that that has not been my understanding of how the process works from my observation when I did criminal work. I am just wondering if he might be able to enlighten us as to whether the police have a valid argument in that regard.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. This should not be done just because it would make life easier for the police. We will look carefully at the Identification of Criminals Act. I did not invent it; it is there.

At present, this act says that an individual who is charged or convicted—someone who is charged with an offence—and who receives a document ordering him or her to appear in court may be fingerprinted and photographed. It is up to the individual to ask that the fingerprints and photographs be subsequently removed from the record. But when someone is arrested for something like speeding, on a suspicion or for whatever reason, it is illegal to take that person to the station and take fingerprints and photographs in case they are needed later. And it should continue to be illegal, or else we will open a door that we may never be able to close again.

We are opposed to this part of the bill, because it could lead to abuses. That is not the goal, and it should not be the goal.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we should tell my colleagues that they cannot ask any questions, because I will not finish my speech before time runs out, not that I could not handle any of their tough questions, of course.

I rise on Bill C-31. There is general agreement among all political parties that the provisions of this bill are long past being needed. A number of the amendments will bring us into the 21st century with regard to processes that our police forces are required to go through in laying or prosecuting charges. There is general support for this bill. We will be supporting it at second reading. It will go to the justice committee along with lots of other bills and we will get to it eventually.

I want to say this, because I always attack the government on this. In the four years that the government has been in place, this is realistically the first bill that has been prepared in a proper way to deal with the problems we have with the Criminal Code. By that, I mean that it is the first bill of any consequence that one could call an omnibus criminal law bill. There have been a couple of other ones that have involved two or three sections of the Criminal Code, but this is the first one that is an omnibus bill.

I am emphasizing this point because if the government had done this in a number of other cases and had brought a whole bunch of individual bills together into one, we could have expedited a number of the amendments that we have in fact passed, oftentimes with all-party support over the last four years, and we would probably be at least a couple of years ahead of where we are right now.

I want to praise the government for finally listening to me in this regard. I want to encourage it to follow my advice more extensively in the future so that we will have other bills, because there are a number of other provisions in the Criminal Code that need amending and, in particular, modernizing so that our police officers, prosecutors and judges can use the Criminal Code more effectively than they can now. There are all sorts of conflicts in the Criminal Code as it stands right now, as well as those sections of the Criminal Code that are just clearly out of date. I urge the government to take my advice more regularly as it has taken it on this particular bill.

With regard to the contents of the bill, members from both the Liberals and the Bloc and I have serious concerns about the provisions that deal with the issue of the taking of fingerprints before a person is charged. The taking of fingerprints and this point of not being allowed to take fingerprints unless our police are going to charge an accused person goes way back. It has been in the Criminal Code for more than half a century, since shortly after we had the technology of fingerprinting. It goes way back into the last century.

Again, as we heard from my colleague from the Bloc, the need to have a charge laid before fingerprints are taken is in keeping with that significant presumption of innocence that underlies a great deal of our criminal justice system. This is really cutting away at that principle of presumption of innocence. I in no way want to cast aspersions on our police forces, but we know from time to time that we have individual police officers in particular who abuse their authority and power.

Unfortunately, if this amendment were to go through, it would allow for the potential for abuse of that kind by a police officer. It is wide open to being used as a fishing expedition. Our courts in the past have said quite clearly that it is offensive to practice within our criminal justice system and, more specifically, to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have great concerns as to whether the clause as presented to the House in this regard would survive a charter challenge. I do not think it would. I believe it is clearly a breach of the charter and the only way that could be overcome is, under article 1, by demonstrating that it is necessary in a free and just society to infringe those fundamental rights in the charter.

Again, as I said in one of my questions earlier, I have spoken with police officers and chiefs of police, and the only explanation I have had is that this is convenient for them. Quite frankly, even when I explore that, I do not understand the explanations I get as to how it is convenient and how it is going to make their jobs easier. I do not see how they are going to meet the charter test, but, of course, that will be explored much more extensively when this bill goes to committee.

We have heard a fair amount today as well that one of the highlights of the bill involves the amendments to the prizefighting section of the code, section 83, and that this bill will modernize that. There are some concerns about it. Having listened to members of the other parties, I would say it sounds as though we have all been lobbied on this issue, but I know that the province of Ontario has some serious reservations about expanding the definition. I am not sure they are justified, I have to say, because I have looked at the section, but it is something that we will need to explore.

What has not been raised here is the parimutuel amendments, the betting amendments in the code. I will address those more extensively and perhaps go back to the prizefighting issue as well either tomorrow or the next day when this bill comes before the House again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh will have 12 minutes remaining to conclude his remarks when the bill is next before the House.

It being 5:39 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to offer my strong support for Bill C-31, which would amend the Criminal Code and other acts, in order to make our justice system more efficient.

To fight crime and ensure the safety of Canadians, we need a justice system that reflects our reality, that allows us to use technology effectively, that adapts to scientific advances, to changes in the nature of evidence and scientific procedures, and that operates as efficiently as possible, while still remaining fair and equitable.

This bill is another concrete measure that demonstrates our government's ongoing commitment to fighting crime in the most effective and advanced way possible.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Justice for his continued efforts and for recognizing that making minor changes and reforming outdated procedures can also make a difference.

I would also like to take this opportunity to look at what effect some of these proposals would have on the work of the public servants who also help provide security and protection for Canadians.

Public officers are not police officers. Their primary responsibility is the enforcement of non-criminal offences covered by federal legislation other than the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. One proposed amendment would give public officers the same authority as police to deal with goods seized under section 489.1, bearing in mind that they both have the same authority to conduct searches.

At present, subsection 489.1(1), which deals with the return of seized goods, only applies to peace officers and allows them to return the goods seized directly to a person when there is no dispute as to ownership of the goods and if the goods do not need to be kept as evidence.

Subsection 489.1(2) applies to anyone who is not a peace officer and requires that they bring the goods seized before a justice of the peace or that they retain them until the justice orders that they be returned to the lawful owner.

Under these sections, a peace officer can seize an item in situ, or on the spot, in order to examine it and return it to the owner, if he is convinced that the item need not be retained as evidence.

In the same circumstances, a public officer exercising his authority under section 487 would have to bring the item before a justice or retain it until it can be reported to a justice or until the justice authorizes its return. In situ seizure under a warrant is becoming an increasingly common practice in a regulatory context because search warrants are used to investigate quasi-criminal matters often pertaining to equipment that is impossible to move in an industrial workplace or similar setting.

Another amendment would specify that the peace officer or public officer who fills out report 5.2, the report to a justice of the peace, can have another person file it under subsection 489.1(1). When the peace officer has seized items and has subsequently returned them to the lawful owner, he must report it to a justice of the peace, on Criminal Code form 5.2.

This addition will save a great deal of time for an administration that has employees in the court house, because they will be in a position to file the documents in question rather than the peace officer or public officer who completed them.

The bill also includes a new provision that will permit the release of any items seized by the police for scientific examination before the trial. The current provisions allow for the release of such items for scientific examination only at the trial stage, which often delays the trial, and is particularly difficult and inefficient in cases of trial by jury.

The new provision will allow items seized to be released before the trial with the court's permission and on the condition that appropriate measures are taken to ensure that they are properly preserved.

The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding prize fights must also be amended in order to exclude legitimate amateur sports, specifically, karate, judo, tae kwon do and wushu, which have emerged since the last amendment in 1932. Some of these sports are included in the International Olympic Committee program, which means that the international, national and provincial sports organizations in question are dedicated to the values and requirements of the IOC in matters of safety. From now on, amateur sports included in the IOC program will be excluded from the definition of “prize fighting” and the provinces can impose conditions on holding fights for these sports if they so choose.

Furthermore, the provinces could exclude any other amateur sport from the application of section 83 and could also impose conditions on holding fights for these sports. These amendments are the result of extensive consultations with the provinces and territories in 2003 and 2004, as well as consultations with national sports organizations at various times since 1998 when the issue was first brought to the government's attention.

In addition, amendments to the pari-mutuel provisions will clarify the federal government's responsibility for permitting and monitoring legitimate pari-mutuel betting on horse races. These amendments will eliminate the unnecessary power to limit the number of races on which bets can be placed at a race-course in Canada. The amendments will also allow race-courses to harmonize their method of calculating payouts with others in the “foreign race pool” when they accept bets on horse races that take place outside of Canada.

These amendments will enable Canadians to place lower bets than what is currently permitted, which will improve their chances of winning without having to spend more money.

The bill also contains an amendment to better preserve the impartiality of jurors by allowing the court to exclude jurors—on application or on its own motion—from the court room in the case of a challenge for cause. Currently, only the defence can make such an application.

This bill also amends telewarrant provisions. For example, three changes will be made to the current telewarrant system. First, the convenience criterion has been removed, except for telewarrants requested orally—in other words, by means of telecommunication that does not produce a writing. Second, access to telewarrants will be expanded. Third, public officers will now be permitted to use telewarrants.

We have also proposed eliminating the convenience criterion in the case of requests submitted in writing because of technological progress and the reliability of modern means of telecommunication. The telewarrant system enables more efficient use of justice system resources, especially the police. These amendments will save time by making it unnecessary for police officers to go to court to submit a warrant request in person, thereby giving them more time to spend on investigations.

With respect to oral telewarrants, our provincial and territorial partners have observed that requiring police officers to express their reasons in writing promotes the provision of complete and well-organized information for the judge's consideration.

It will now be possible to obtain the following warrants: warrants respecting the seizure of weapons, ammunition and explosive devices; search and seizure warrants in offences related to gambling, betting and stolen minerals; production orders for documents and business records; tracking warrants; and warrants with respect to number recorders.

Police and public officials could request a greater number of warrants by using this process, which would no doubt be beneficial to them. This will be particularly useful for federal public officials, who would otherwise have to make special arrangements in order to show up in person at various locations across the country to secure warrants. This makes the job easier.

This bill also proposes reclassifying certain Criminal Code offences as hybrid offences. This reclassification would convert an offence punishable by summary conviction or indictment under the Criminal Code into a hybrid offence. This allows the prosecution to proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction, whichever it deems most suitable under the circumstances of the case.

We feel that these changes are necessary and quite useful since they give the prosecution more latitude by allowing it to choose the most appropriate procedure for the case at hand. This will considerably simplify the administration of justice and deliver on the government's commitment to make Canada's criminal justice system more efficient.

I would also like to mention that reclassification has no impact on the seriousness of the offences in question. All it does—and I want to stress this—is allow the Crown to choose the procedure for prosecuting the alleged offender. For example, a criminal offence that becomes a hybrid offence can still be prosecuted by indictment if, under the circumstances, a more complex procedure, including a preliminary inquiry and a jury trial, is warranted. However, when the facts of the case do not warrant the full procedure or a heavier penalty, it is possible to prosecute the offence by summary conviction.

It is important that the procedure used reflect the seriousness of the offence and that we make the best use of the court's time and resources. Reclassification offers greater flexibility, making it possible to choose the most appropriate procedure under the circumstances and to increase the efficiency of our criminal justice system. The defence will still have the right to a preliminary inquiry or a jury trial where a full procedure is warranted.

This bill also includes changes to the expert witness regime. Once again, these changes are necessary because the time currently set out in the Criminal Code for communicating expert reports is sometimes not enough to allow the other party to respond appropriately to what is frequently becoming complex and highly technical evidence.

To respond to expert witness evidence, it is generally necessary to find and hire an expert in the particular field, brief that person on the case, obtain transcripts and so on. The changes make various improvements to the regime. First, to encourage compliance with the notice requirements in the Criminal Code, the bill provides for a mandatory 10-day adjournment if these requirements are not met. Second, so that all the parties are prepared to respond to expert evidence, the bill provides for a discretionary adjournment when the notice requirements have been met, but the other party has not had enough time to prepare.

Third, the Criminal Code will contain a list of factors the court must consider in deciding whether to grant an adjournment or to lengthen or shorten an adjournment that has already been granted. These factors are meant to reflect the challenges associated with a trial involving expert testimony.

Lastly, the court will have to explain if it refuses to grant an adjournment or reduce the period of adjournment. The new measures will also help the courts in rendering decisions. These changes would enable the courts to make enlightened decisions that are adapted to different cases of non-compliance and would encourage parties to adhere to the notice provisions.

These changes will not generate any additional obligations on the defence. Both parties' obligations will remain the same. The changes would simply improve the expert evidence regime in the Criminal Code to ensure that the parties can respond appropriately to the expert testimony, by providing new measures that the court can take if there is insufficient time, and to encourage parties to adhere to the notice provisions in the Criminal Code.

We know that the Identification of Criminals Act does not authorize police officers to fingerprint or photograph individuals in lawful custody until they have been charged or convicted, which often results in unnecessary delays.

Some people have called for the enforcement of this legislation to be simplified and clarified. That is what our proposed changes would do. The proposed amendments would streamline this process by adding the authority to fingerprint and photograph an individual who is in lawful custody following an arrest, but not yet charged.

For example, if the individual is not charged with an offence, if the charges are dropped or if the individual is acquitted, we know that many police forces destroy fingerprints and photographs at the request of the person involved, if the person is not found guilty. The courts have ruled that it is not unreasonable for police forces to retain fingerprints if no request is made for them to be destroyed or returned after charges are dropped.

I have listed some examples covered by this bill. It is important to note that the bill includes about 40 amendments that will all help improve, streamline and modernize our justice system. I urge all members to fully support this bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of the member's speech, he mentioned fingerprinting and identification and talked about how they can be kept on record. I find it a little sketchy. I am a bit puzzled why this would take place and, in particular, when a person would get these records back.

Perhaps he would like to explain that once again for the record.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people who have been charged or accused often ask that question. Currently, under section 133, a person who is arrested and lawfully detained, and who is accused of a criminal offence, may immediately be fingerprinted and photographed. Once the trial is over, fingerprints and photographs may be returned to that person on request.

Right now, a certain period of time passes between the moment a person is taken into lawful custody and the moment he or she is charged. There are far fewer police officers in some jurisdictions than in others, or they may be very far away. That is why we need to ensure efficiency. We can help police forces be more efficient in all jurisdictions and physical locations where the Criminal Code applies, and update the code, by making it possible for fingerprinting and photographing to happen early on, any time after individuals are taken into lawful custody and before they are charged.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the member said that these 40 amendments were designed to improve the efficiency of the justice system.

I have a question for him regarding the amendment that deals with the permission of the provinces to decide whether to expand the list of sports permitted to take place within their province and to authorize specific contests.

I am referring to the issue of mixed martial arts, which Senator John McCain calls human cockfighting. I have an article that mentions that those who are attracted to this sport are men between the ages of 18 and 35 who have attention spans too short to watch 15 rounds of boxing.

The issue is whether mixed martial arts is something that we want to be promoting as a government in this country.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very interesting question.

Since 1932, many sports, also known as prizefighting, have been restricted by the Criminal Code. There have been no amendments since 1932, but a number of sports have appeared in the past 20 years, including initial martial arts. The Olympic committee decided that these should become Olympic sports. That is why they should no longer be proscribed under the Criminal Code.

In answer to my colleague's question, we have what are known as mixed martial arts. It is hard to tell whether these are martial arts or not. What my colleague said was that we have to choose our words carefully when provincial and territorial organizations refer to Olympic rules. In that case, they can be authorized or removed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When question period began, the hon. parliamentary secretary had five minutes remaining for questions and answers.

We will now hear from the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I very much appreciated his speech.

The response to my friend from Newfoundland and Labrador was incomplete.

For better preciseness, the question was under what circumstances fingerprints and mug shots would be taken, that is, for what crimes, and whether that would apply to the arrest phase of the offence. Under what circumstances, if there is no charge, would those fingerprints and mug shots be returned?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I will try to answer this question as quickly as possible.

The member does indeed serve with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the benefit of all Canadians, I will say that this member and his colleagues make it possible for both sides to work together.

The new bill states that fingerprints and photographs can be taken at the time of arrest, if the person is in lawful custody. Under the old legislation, fingerprinting or photographing was not permitted if the individual had not been charged.

That is why arrest warrants often mention section 133, which states how the accused must behave when providing fingerprints and photographs.

This is new, and will help speed up the process. In areas where this is difficult, it will also make it possible to request fingerprinting and photographs immediately, instead of waiting until later, which could be a problem for both the accused and the police forces.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the contentious point of the bill seems to be the process with respect to fingerprints.

We could possibly solve the problem by making an amendment at committee stage to make certain that the police would destroy the fingerprints if no charges were laid.

As I understand it, right now it would be up to the accused to make a request that the fingerprints be destroyed. If the accused does not make the request, then those fingerprints would not be destroyed. There is nothing in legislation that requires the police to do that at this point. We cannot assume that they are going to voluntarily do it.

I think we are going to have to amend the bill to make it a requirement that if the police do not press charges, they take it upon themselves to erase or eliminate the fingerprints rather than requiring the accused to make that request.

Does the member have any comments on that point?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very relevant. Regarding the destruction of fingerprints and photographs, under the old system, if the individual was not convicted, was acquitted or if the charges were dropped, the individual could ask the police force directly to destroy the fingerprints and photos.

That remains the process in place, because it is important that the individual who knows he is not guilty or is acquitted be able to ask that the photos and fingerprints be destroyed. This must not be left to an automatic mechanism, in order to ensure that the decision or response to his request will be applicable in the future. If there is an automatic mechanism, there is go guarantee that it will happen automatically. However, it is better if the individual who is the subject of the fingerprints and photos can submit a request directly.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-31.

As a follow up to the minister's final comments when he seemed to suggest that it has to be left up to the accused to request the destruction of the fingerprints if no charges are laid, I cannot really agree with what he is proposing. I think what will happen over time is that the accused will simply forget to do it and the police will basically build a database. We have to make it a requirement.

Perhaps we could do both. We could make it a requirement that the police do it, but also have some sort of reminder for the accused to do the same. It would be a pincer movement to make sure it is done two ways. If one does not work, the other one will.

Bill C-31 is quite large. There are 39 pages to it. It is an omnibus bill. Normally we do not like omnibus bills. History shows that omnibus bills are something that governments tend to use. I am aware of one government in Manitoba a number of years ago that was great at bringing in omnibus bills. It would put in a bunch of things we liked and it would stick in some poison pills that we did not like. It was certainly a real conundrum as to how to vote on those types of bills.

That was my first experience with omnibus bills. I am sure they have been around for many years, but certainly that was one government that used them very effectively. The Conservative government has managed to do the same. In the year I have been here I have seen them a couple of times.

The NDP justice critic informs me that in the case of making legal changes, an omnibus bill approach is a good idea. As a matter of fact, he has suggested that he would actually like to see the government do more of these things. I do not think I am going to become a convert any time soon on the idea that the government should be encouraged to bring in more omnibus bills, but evidently, and I know there are a lot of learned lawyers in the chamber, in the area of crime, the NDP justice critic thinks it is a good approach.

We are dealing with some 40 changes. I want to say at the outset that we will be supporting sending this bill to committee. There is one major issue where I can see that all of the opposition parties are going to have a problem. The government probably would have known that in advance. It is the whole issue of fingerprinting. I have been reading over some of the previous speeches on the bill and pretty much everybody has focused on the fingerprinting parts of the bill. Perhaps the committee will resolve that issue with some amendments.

There are a couple of sleeper amendments that I personally would be not too happy about. They do not seem to have drawn a lot of ire from other members at this point, but there may be members in the opposition or even in my own party who may dislike some of the other provisions of this bill and may want to make some amendments.

The whole idea of the bill is to modernize the criminal justice procedures. We want to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as an integral part of the Government of Canada's commitment to ensuring the safety and security of communities across Canada.

Through continual modernization of criminal procedures, the Government of Canada is creating a justice system that can respond to changes in criminal activity and constant evolution of technology, and certainly that is a point. We are dealing with that in the computer areas, struggling with this issue in the child pornography bill that we have just sent to committee as well as in Bill C-27 that is coming up. There is this whole area of technology, the huge changes in technology, and with it the criminals seem to just simply adapt. Sort of like the viruses, they adapt to the new realities, the new environment. They actually improve on their techniques, and crime continues. So, we do have to update the law. It is a constant battle.

As a matter of fact, the entire Criminal Code is probably in for a rewrite. It is quite ancient, quite old and it certainly needs a lot of work done on it. Perhaps rather than just simply constantly working on a piecemeal basis, the member opposite, who I know is listening right now, I am sure would be agreeable to get together. We are in a minority Parliament here. Perhaps the government should announce a plan to rewrite the whole Criminal Code with a view that in two or three years, or however long it would take, at the end of the day we could come up with a new, modernized Criminal Code that would perhaps be a little more understandable to people in the country.

The government has worked closely with its provincial and territorial partners to create 40 legislative amendments.The fact of the matter is that working with the provinces is a very important part. I know that on a government-to-government basis it is oftentimes very difficult to work with the provinces, because we are dealing with 10 different points of view, and sometimes that can lead to a lot of problems. It is easier for a federal government to simply bring in its own initiatives, even for provinces. However, sometimes in a province, when we bring in an initiative, it then causes a problem, a spillover effect into the next jurisdiction.

So, as much as possible, it is very important for provinces to get together as groups or to co-operate with the federal government. That, by necessity, often results in a very slow and bogged-down process, although I have seen some big improvements, certainly in the last couple of years in Manitoba with the Manitoba justice minister Mr. Chomiak and with Gord Mackintosh actually taking a very strong position on various crime initiatives and driving the agenda through their provincial associations and actually getting results here in Ottawa. That, to me, was proof that one little province, if it is determined and wants to push a certain agenda, can actually get results, even with Ottawa.

So, I do commend the government for actively working with the provinces. I think it should continue to do that, because out of that process, we have developed quite a few good initiatives, even over the last couple of years.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the Identification of Criminals Act, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Canada Evidence Act will all help to ensure that Canada's laws continue to protect Canadians.

The flight offence is an interesting one. Basically this is a new offence that would target individuals who leave a jurisdiction in violation of the bail conditions. This would create a clear deterrent to fleeing a jurisdiction and would establish a record of such behaviour. Having access to this record would help prevent the release of an accused person who has, in the past, failed to abide by conditions to stay within a jurisdiction. As well, the onus would be placed on the accused to justify why he or she should be subsequently released on bail. In addition, more time may be made available for the arranging for the return of the accused to the originating jurisdiction for trial.

What that really means is that a certain area of the country, in this particular case British Columbia, and I have this in my notes, has, I believe, 700 people hanging out who are wanted on outstanding warrants in other parts of the country. I remember seeing on television and reading in the papers in the last couple of years how authorities had developed this program through which they were providing people with bus fares and sending them back to Ontario or wherever they came from. Now they have a program backed by the business community to return the people to the jurisdictions that they came from, but I believe they are turning them over to the police force. Before they would just put them on a bus and get them out of B.C. They could, of course, simply hide where they went to as well, but this would turn them over to authorities.

What was happening was that a lot of the warrants the police had for the people they were finding in B.C. covered a very limited area. The warrant was written out, for example, for shoplifting and it applied perhaps within a radius of 50 miles of Brockville or Belleville, but of course now the person was in B.C. The authorities looked at this warrant and found they could not do anything about it because they were outside the jurisdiction. So this is probably a very good provision. As I said, it is a new offence and hopefully it will take care of some of this because we should not be tolerating people shoplifting and doing other crimes and then just simply heading out of the province to hide, hoping they never get caught.

These amendments, as I indicated, are the result of an initiative led by British Columbia in a federal-provincial-territorial working group that was endorsed by ministers responsible for justice, in September 2008. That was just September 2008, and we are only a year down the road and already dealing with legislation. Who says that a minority government cannot work? I say that to the government members, but we also have the element of the Senate to deal with, so that is a different issue.

The next part of the bill deals with the identification of criminals. The Identification of Criminals Act does not currently authorize police officers to fingerprint or photograph individuals in lawful custody until they are charged or convicted. This often results in unnecessary delays, according to the police and the government, and can prolong an accused individual's stay at the police station.

The proposed amendments would streamline the process by adding the authority to fingerprint and photograph an individual who is in lawful custody involving an arrest but who is not yet charged. So once again, this is extremely controversial. It will perhaps be amended or deleted at committee, but at a bare minimum, it would have to be amended so that the police themselves would be required to destroy fingerprints that were taken. If doing that is not required, and it is left up to the accused, over time people are going to forget about this and it is not going to be done. If we have time at the end we will come back to this fingerprinting issue, because there are 40 parts to this bill and I am probably halfway through my allotted time at this point.

As for telewarrants, this sounds like a fairly reasonable position. The telewarrants will allow police officers to apply for search and seizure-related warrants by providing information to a justice of the peace on oath via telephone or other means of telecommunications. This is going to save the travel and wait time it would take if the officer had to apply in person. I can certainly see that in the northern parts of the country this should be a huge improvement, rather than having to drive 100 miles at 3 a.m. to get a warrant. The telewarrant system probably should be in place.

Under the current system, telewarrants are available only when it is impractical for the officer to appear in person and are available only on certain types of warrants, so once again, if the officer can drive the 100 miles, then that is what he or she is required to do. This change is going to make doing that optional, so that the officer can simply get the telewarrant instead.

The proposed amendments would eliminate the need to satisfy the impracticality requirement in cases where the telewarrant request is submitted in writing. The amendments would also expand the availability of telewarrants to public officers. These are officials who enforce federal non-Criminal Code legislation but who are not police officers.

Then there are provisions with regard to expert witness evidence. Certainly there is another provision dealing with the use of non-lawyers, and I might spend a minute or two talking about that.

When individuals are charged with summary offences, which are less serious offences that involve fewer procedural requirements, it is important that they have access to adequate representation. The proposed amendments would give each province the power to authorize programs and establish criteria outlining when an agent or non-lawyer can represent a defendant charged with a summary offence.

These amendments would allow for different approaches, depending upon the maximum term of imprisonment associated with the offence, among other things. The proposed amendments would, however, allow agents to appear on behalf of defendants to seek an adjournment of summary proceedings, regardless of the maximum term of imprisonment.

I do want to spend some time talking about the prize-fighting amendments to this bill. Under the current law, it is an offence to have any involvement in prize fighting, defined as an encounter or fight with fists or hands, except for amateur boxing, under the authority of the province. Once again, here we are dealing basically with the devolution of letting the provinces decide.

Many amateur sports, even those without monetary prizes, are technically included in the offence. The proposed amendments would expand the list of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence so that the amateur combative sports such as judo and karate, currently in the Olympic program, would be allowed. The amendments would also permit a province to decide whether to expand the list of sports permitted to take place within the province and authorize specific contests.

Now we get to the issue of mixed martial arts fighting, which many members have seen take off in North America. It is a big deal and is certainly popular. I believe most provinces still ban it, but by approving this legislation, what we are doing is giving the provinces the right to approve these mixed martial arts. Senator John McCain once described mixed martial arts, which is a whirlwind mix of jiu-jitsu, judo, karate, boxing, kick-boxing and wrestling, as human cockfighting, so he obviously did not like it.

Just before I run out of time, a news report talked about Canada's love of hockey brawls. The company that promotes this fighting claimed that men between the ages of 18 and 35 have attention spans that are too short to watch 15 rounds of boxing, so mixed martial arts have bouts that usually last no more than 15 minutes, which are made for today's video culture.

Just before I finish, I just want to point out that with football players today, we are finding traumatic brain injuries. We are finding that football players are dying in greater numbers at young ages after they retire. We are finding, for example, that some wrestlers have the demented brains of 80-year-olds.

Clearly there are a lot of things we have to look at here within our existing sports, without promoting even more sporting activities like this, which could have even worse consequences.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. Since being elected to this chamber, he has certainly become a star in his own right. I would like to congratulate him on these and many other issues.

I do want to touch on one topic. Near the beginning of his speech, he did mention sleeper amendments and some amendments that, I am assuming, may cause him some trouble or some conflict with his voting intentions. He talked about how some of these problems can be cleared up by certain amendments within the committee process.

One of those, and I think this is what he is getting at, is also causing me some concern, and that is the idea of destroying the fingerprint evidence he spoke of. In this particular situation, if someone has given evidence or his or her fingerprints and a mug shot after being charged, at that point, I am assuming they have to get rid of those on their own accord. I think that is causing him some problems. It certainly is causing me problems as well.

Is there a way in which this can be amended so this would not occur, so that over a period of time, without the input of the particular person charged, the evidence could be taken from the records?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind comments.

With regard to the issue, it seemed to me from reading in Hansard the other speakers' comments on this issue that an amendment will certainly have to be tabled, because the Liberal Party clearly did not like these particular provisions, and the NDP certainly does not, and neither does the Bloc critic. On that basis alone, clearly that particular clause will have to be amended.

Essentially the bill is talking about people being fingerprinted on suspicion alone, before they are charged. If the person is charged, then the fingerprints will stay. However, if the person is not charged and he or she walks out of a police station, why would the police want to keep the fingerprints of an innocent person? The question is whether or not one can trust the police to in fact dispose of those fingerprints. The suggestion from the government is that we should leave it up to the individual.

I would think that most people would be so happy to get out of the police station, the last thing they would think about doing is asking for a copy of their prints. Therefore, I think we have to make it incumbent in law that the police must follow that procedure, particularly as the government just said that we should leave it up to individual. That is not the way to proceed here.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says it worked with its provincial and territorial partners to develop some 40 amendments to address the gaps in the legislation.

Concerning the specific issue of agents other than legal counsel, we know very well that professional codes are a matter of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. In that context, does my colleague know how we could reconcile the fact that there would be two pieces of legislation, this bill regarding agents at the federal level, and the Quebec Professional Code, as an example? In fact, this is one of the concerns expressed by the Barreau du Québec.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this overlap in jurisdictions.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly one area that will have to be dealt with at committee. The member will have to try to build a consensus with the other two opposition parties to get some sort of amendment done. There is always tension between provincial and federal jurisdiction. The member certainly knows that in the area of securities commissions, I have always argued that we should keep the securities commissions in the provincial realm, and not necessarily just because of provincial rights—although that is an issue—but because of the fact there is really no guarantee that a national system will work any better than the provincial systems. It depends on the people running the systems.

However, with regard to the hon. member's question, we have to get the bill to committee. We support getting the bill to committee. I assume the Bloc does too. Let us get it to committee and start dealing with these issues on a case-by-case basis and see if we can come up with some amendments that could work.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member from the Liberal Party who called the member for Elmwood—Transcona a star in the House. I would like to ask the star from Elmwood—Transcona a question on telewarrants.

Telewarrants allow police officers to apply for search and seizure-related warrants by providing information to a justice of the peace by oath via telephone or other means of telecommunication. The amendment would also expand the availability of telewarrants to public officers. They are officials who enforce federal non-Criminal Code legislation, but are not police officers.

That is a bit of a concern to me. I would like the star member to give me his thoughts on this.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not think we are going to have a problem with the telewarrant process. I say this because we simply have to update the Criminal Code and processes and procedures to our current standards, because the law is changing and, certainly, the criminals are changing too.

It makes no sense to drive a car 100 miles and to burn up all of that gas and time to appear before an officer to get a warrant, when it can simply be done by way of a telewarrant. Once again, there is nothing in this bill, outside of the concerns on the fingerprinting issue that we are dealing with, that is causing a lot of ripples here. On that basis, the NDP caucus and critic are in favour of voting for this bill at second reading and sending it to committee.

Hopefully we can iron out in committee whatever problems we perceive there to be. I am not going to prejudge the committee, because once a bunch of lawyers get together in a room, they will find problems that no one else could ever have thought of.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that I am not a lawyer, but as people so often say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Anyone who has observed the debates that have been taking place here, particularly for some time now, on the subject of order, justice and the law can see why so many lawyers get into politics. It is obvious. However, we sometimes need good accountants too—that was my previous profession—to help the government with its finances. That is an important thing to do.

In lawyer speak, it was “on or about” May 15, 2009, that the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-31 for first reading in the House of Commons. The enactment amends the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.

There are a lot of things to talk about here. The bill contains nearly 40 amendments. I am going to run through a number of points, then come back to talk about some of them in greater detail. This bill deals with the telewarrant system, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier. It proposes a mandatory 10-day adjournment when requirements for notice have not been fulfilled. It sets out criteria for determining when a representative can represent a defendant charged with a summary conviction offence. It authorizes fingerprinting and photographing and any other identification measure for persons who are in lawful custody but have not yet been charged. We will have to come back to that point.

It expands the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include bribery offences committed by Canadians outside Canada. The bill creates an offence of leaving the jurisdiction in violation of bail conditions. It permits the list of permitted exceptions to the prize fighting offence to be expanded. It also updates Canada's pari-mutuel betting provisions. It updates the provisions on interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances. It reclassifies six non-violent offences as hybrid offences. This is another case where, sometimes, even though everyone is supposed to know the law, there can be some problems in how it is interpreted. That is what we are trying to clarify, of course. The bill also deletes provisions of the Criminal Code that are no longer valid, corrects or clarifies wording in various provisions and makes minor updates to other provisions.

That was a quick rundown of what this bill addresses, updates or amends. We do hope this will improve the situation. As I was saying earlier, when I asked my colleague a question, the government claims to have collaborated with its provincial and territorial partners to develop these legislative amendments in order to deal with the gaps in the legislation.

However, we, in the Bloc Québécois, intend to hear testimony from one or more representatives from Quebec to determine how much collaboration there in fact was and whether the conclusions are satisfactory to Quebec. Needless to say—but I will say it again nonetheless—the Bloc Québécois is here, in this House, primarily to defend the interests of Quebec and to promote its sovereignty in every jurisdiction of a sovereign government.

I will now to talk about the Bloc's position on Bill C-31. This bill makes a number of amendments, which I just listed. Although some of the amendments are interesting, namely on providing greater access to telewarrants or on bribery offences committed outside Canada, other amendments cause us some concern.

I am thinking, for instance, about the attempt to regulate in a roundabout way the legal profession, which falls within Quebec's jurisdiction, particularly by allowing the application of identification processes to detained individuals who have not yet been charged.

In the face of a bill that contains some good and some bad, the Bloc Québécois will maintain its approach. We will review the bill carefully and in good faith in committee, put forward amendments as required and, then, determine whether or not to support the bill in its final form.

An analysis of the bill makes it evident that several substantive and technical changes are being made to the Criminal Code.

Let us take a moment to get into a few specific aspects.

Regarding telewarrants, clause 2 of the bill introduces the telewarrant procedure for the purpose of seizing weapons. The procedure is outlined for issuing telewarrants whether the application is made by a means of telecommunication that produces a writing or not.

The use of telewarrants is also introduced with respect to offences in connection with to disorderly houses, gaming and betting, special minerals and production orders.

With respect to another aspect, namely fleeing to another province, clause 5 of the bill creates a distinct offence for persons who are at large on an undertaking or recognizance and flee outside their province of residence.

Then, there is the 10-day adjournment, which was explained in greater detail earlier. Clause 30 of the bill amends the current rules on the requirement for one party to notify the other of its intent to call an expert witness. Subclause 2 of the provision amending subsections 653.3(4) and 653.3(5) of the Criminal Code sets at 10 days the minimum period of adjournment ordered by the court whenever the prescribed notice has not been given. This time period may be reduced by consent of the parties.

Coming back to agents other than counsel, clauses 31, 32 and 33 of the bill amend the rules on the ability of an agent other than counsel to appear, examine and cross-examine witnesses for and on behalf of the defendant.

The proposed amendments would give each province the power to establish criteria outlining when an agent, or non-lawyer, can represent a defendant charged with a summary offence, a less serious offence that involves fewer procedural requirements. These amendments would allow different approaches depending on the maximum term of imprisonment associated with the offence, among other things. The proposed amendments would, however, allow agents to appear on behalf of defendants to seek an adjournment of summary proceedings, regardless of the maximum term of imprisonment.

As I said earlier, the provinces and Quebec are responsible for regulating professions. Furthermore, Quebec and the provinces also have jurisdiction over professional regulations for lawyers, as part of the administration of justice in the provinces and in Quebec. This is something, as I mentioned before, that the Barreau du Québec is concerned about.

According to the Department of Justice, under current law, it is an offence to have any involvement in prize fighting, defined as an “encounter or fight with fists or hands”, except for amateur boxing under authority of the province.

Many amateur sporting events, even those without monetary prizes, are technically included in this offence. The proposed amendments would expand the list of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence so that amateur combative sports such as judo and karate, which are now Olympic events, would be allowed. The amendments would also permit a province to decide whether to expand the list of sports permitted to take place within that province and authorize specific contests.

Another thing the Barreau du Québec is worried about is the identification of individuals who have not been charged. Clause 39 of the bill amends paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Identification of Criminals Act, which authorizes the fingerprinting and photographing of persons who are in lawful custody but who have not yet been charged or convicted of a specific offence, which means that such information regarding someone who has been detained but not charged would be on file.

The Identification of Criminals Act stipulates that law enforcement officials can take photographs, fingerprints and measurements of only certain categories of individuals. Those categories are set out in subsection 2(1) of the act:

The following persons may be fingerprinted or photographed or subjected to such other measurements, processes and operations having the object of identifying persons as are approved by order of the Governor in Council:

(a) any person who is in lawful custody charged with or convicted of

(i) an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under section 50 of that Act, or

(ii) an offence under the Security of Information Act;

I would like say something here as an aside. There is a principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, when we read excerpts of legislation, we realize they can be rather difficult to understand. It takes some careful reflection. That is in fact what we want the committee to do, when it receives the bill.

The Bloc Québécois has full confidence in its representatives on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, both the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. We fully trust them to interpret things that often sound like mumbo jumbo to us.

I will continue reading the list of people specified in the act:

(b) any person who has been apprehended under the Extradition Act;

(c) any person alleged to have committed an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under section 50 of that Act...

I will skip a short passage, because I fear I will not get to a very important part, regarding the concerns expressed by the Barreau du Québec.

Clause 39 of Bill C-31 aims to amend this situation by replacing subsection 2(1)(a) of the Identification of Criminals Act with the following:

any person who is in lawful custody after being arrested for [that is the part being added], charged with or convicted of

I will not read out the offences as I did earlier.

In short, with this bill, which primarily addresses this sphere of activity, the government is trying to circumvent the requirement for a person to be charged or convicted by bringing in a far less restrictive criterion stating that the person need only be arrested. As such, identifying information may be taken from a person arrested for an offence other than an offence designated as a contravention before that person is even charged with anything.

I would like to discuss the main issues, which are the concerns expressed by the Barreau du Québec. The Barreau du Québec's criminal law committee reviewed Bill C-31 and submitted its observations and comments on, among other things, telewarrants. To sum up, it said that this system would completely reform and modernize the criminal law process in Canada, which is what the government wants to achieve. However, even though the Barreau du Québec supports the introduction of this measure, it is concerned about how the government is going about it. For example, it believes that it would have been better to amend the section of the Criminal Code that deals with issuing search warrants to state that telewarrant rules apply in all cases, rather than making piecemeal changes.

I will now talk about agents other than lawyers. The Barreau says that regulating professions is a provincial responsibility. In addition, regulating the legal profession is also part of the provinces' responsibility for the administration of justice at the provincial level. The Barreau du Québec states that under the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, pleading or acting for others before any tribunal is the exclusive prerogative of the practising advocate. There is already a jurisdictional problem here, and the Barreau is afraid that the proposal, as written, will create confusion as to the meaning of “agent” and could give rise to prosecutions for practising law illegally.

The Barreau du Québec also has serious concerns about identification. It is worried about the possibility of keeping a record on someone who is in custody but has not yet been charged. The Barreau considers this an extraordinary power that is currently used only in cases of terrorism. It is also concerned about the real risk that fingerprints taken under such circumstances could be used for purposes other than the ones for which they were intended. The legislative proposal broadens the use of other identification processes, but does not control the use of digital fingerprints before charges are laid and does not set rules for keeping and destroying such information. With regard to genetic fingerprints, I would remind the House that a mechanism for automatically destroying identifying material on innocent people has been introduced.

The Barreau considers that keeping a record on someone has consequences and that that is why such treatment is currently reserved for individuals who have been charged or convicted. Of course, the Barreau du Québec has concerns.

Although the Bloc Québécois sees good things in this bill and is in favour of some of the amendments, it also sees some more biased elements. We will be sure to work with the committee to amend and clarify the bill as needed so that Quebeckers are better protected against crime, but also against the Conservative government.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that there is a new offence being put in this Bill C-31.

The new offence is called “leaving the jurisdiction”. It has been created to target people who leave the jurisdiction in violation of bail conditions. I guess the problem is fairly big in B.C. with several hundred people hanging out in Vancouver. When they are approached by police officers, they find a huge number. I actually had the statistics, but I cannot find them right now. Of these 700 people had outstanding warrants in other provinces. Because the warrants are written up in such a way that they only cover a certain radius from where the crime occurred, they are unable to be sent back.

I would like to know, what does the member think of that particular idea, and has that been a problem in his riding in Quebec over the last number of years?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what better than to describe the concern expressed by the Barreau du Québec on this point, namely flight to another province?

Clause 5 of the bill creates a specific offence for the situation in which a person released on an undertaking or recognizance leaves the boundaries of their province.

The Barreau du Québec wonders about the need to handle this breach of condition so specifically. The Barreau believes that the purpose of this clause is to resolve certain problems involving preserving and communicating information. The Barreau points out that this provision makes the Criminal Code unnecessarily cumbersome and that other existing measures could achieve the desired objectives. The possibility of having this information held at the Centre de renseignements policiers du Québec and at the Canadian Police Information Centre would allow for immediate access to it. These are the concerns expressed by the Barreau. This also shows the Barreau's position on the matter. The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of Quebec and often also defends the positions of the Barreau du Québec.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's comments regarding the issue of people who are accused being fingerprinted before they are actually charged, and how the Bloc proposes we should deal with that whole issue at committee, whether or not we should be eliminating the provision completely or whether we should be making an amendment to require the police to erase the fingerprints if the person is not charged. Or, if in addition to that, we should somehow build in some requirement that the accused has a responsibility to ask for their fingerprints back.

I wonder what the member's ideas are as to how this particular subject should proceed at the committee stage.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if a person is simply arrested and if their fingerprints or photograph are taken and they are never found guilty of any offence, I do not see why that information should be kept. We wonder what purpose that could serve.

However, as I was saying earlier, I am not a lawyer and I am no expert. I think that in light of the discussions we will have in committee, with the colleagues I named earlier in whom the Bloc has a great deal of trust, we can clarify things.

That being said, as far as fingerprints and photographs are concerned, in cases where a person is arrested and then, for some reason, the charges are dropped or the person is found not guilty, I do not see why all that information would still be kept on record somewhere.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few comments to this very important debate on Bill C-31. It is a rare omnibus bill before the House.

My colleague and our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, spoke on this matter and praised the government for finally bringing forward an omnibus bill dealing with a number of serious issues that ought not to be presented on an individual basis but, in fact, presented for collective consideration.

He has made the point on numerous other occasions that some of the bills introduced by the Conservative government should have been part of an omnibus bill and that it did not make sense to use the time of the House to bring forward very individual, specific pieces to this big puzzle that we are all trying to grapple with, which is how to best crack down on crime in this country and do so responsibly.

We stand in the House so often and hear Conservative members across the way accusing members on this side of the House of being soft on crime every time we dare question or debate a particular item. I hope they are learning from today's debate, both on Bill C-58 and now on Bill C-31, that the New Democratic Party gives very serious consideration to each bill that is before us. We analyze them thoroughly and make constructive suggestions.

On the basis of our analysis, we then choose whether to support a bill or not. If the positives outweigh any negatives and if we cannot get the perfect bill, we usually hold our noses and support the government of the day. In this case, we have said that this is a good bill. It addresses many important issues, but there is one area that has been identified by New Democrat members and also by members of the Bloc that needs to be reconsidered. It has to do with fingerprinting.

We are hoping that, by raising these concerns today in a very serious way with substantial backing and evidence, the government will consider our proposition and ensure that we can deal with this matter at committee.

In the past, members have given their support for the competition about the most wisest MP among us. Members in the House have collectively shown that they agree that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is the most wise and knowledgeable among us. In fact, he has come to the House on numerous occasions with very wise suggestions and other members have listened to him many times.

Today has to be one of those times. He makes the very important point that we in the House should not be supporting legislation that allows for the taking of fingerprints before a person is charged. I want to quote from his speech. He said:

The taking of fingerprints and this point of not being allowed to take fingerprints unless our police are going to charge an accused person goes way back. It has been in the Criminal Code for more than half a century, since shortly after we had the technology of fingerprinting. It goes way back into the last century.

I think the amendment that we will be proposing at committee needs to be taken very seriously. I am sure that the Bloc will be doing the same. In fact, we hope that will be considered on an expeditious basis because none of us want to see this bill held up. We know that it deals with numerous important issues like providing greater access to the telewarrant process for peace officers. It provides for a mandatory 10-day adjournment where notice provisions have not been followed.

It empowers each province to authorize programs and establish criteria outlining when an agent or a non-lawyer can represent a defendant. It expands the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include bribery offences committed by Canadians outside Canada. It creates an offence of leaving the jurisdiction in violation of bail conditions. It permits a province to expand the list of permitted exceptions to the prize fighting offence. It updates the legislative language of parimutuel betting provisions.

It updates the provisions on interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances. It reclassifies six non-violent offences as hybrid offences. Finally, it deletes provisions of the Criminal Code that are no longer valid or correct, and clarifies wording in various provisions and makes minor updates to others.

That is a long list of important issues. We support 99.9% of this list. We want to see the bill passed to committee and implemented quickly.

We would like the government to seriously recognize the wisdom of my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh and others in the House for making an amendment on fingerprinting.

In the few minutes that I have remaining I want to talk just generally about the issue of crime and the approach that needs to be taken.

Too often, as I said earlier, we are accused of not giving prompt and swift attention to every procedure and every program presented to us by the Conservative government. Our biggest concern has to do with the fact that the government continues to take a narrow approach to the issue of crime and justice in our society today.

There is nothing wrong with putting dangerous offenders in jail and making sure they serve proper time. There is nothing wrong with making sure that we actually do everything possible to cut down on gang behaviour, drug dealing, the sex trade, and child pornography, which we just dealt with this morning, every issue that is offensive to our sense of what should and ought to be part of any kind of a civil society. Too little time in this place is spent on the root causes of crime.

I want to commend to all members in the House a study that was done in Winnipeg by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives entitled “If You Want to Change Violence in the 'Hood, You Have to Change the 'Hood: Violence and Street Gangs in Winnipeg's Inner City”. It was written by Elizabeth Comack, Lawrence Deane, Larry Morrissette and Jim Silver. What they say in one very brief phrase is that we must look at the root causes of crime as well as have the harsh consequences in place for those who commit the crime. All of the gang members who spoke to these researchers said repeatedly that we need to look at what caused them to get into a life of crime in the first place.

If we can start to look at the lack of inclusion, the poverty, the insecurity, the despair, the previous sexual violence that had been committed, and the root causes of crime, then we will have made a real difference.

I look forward to the government's approach on this very difficult and serious issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a legislative committee.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.