Bill C-36 (Historical)

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with regard to the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-36, a bill to increase sentencing for the most serious crimes.

The Criminal Code amendments I am proposing have two objectives. First, with these amendments, those convicted of murder and high treason will no longer be able to apply for parole under the faint hope clause. Consequently, someone who commits such an offence on or after the day of coming into force of these Criminal Code amendments will no longer be able to apply for early parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence. These people will no longer be able to apply for early parole. In short, the faint hope clause will no longer apply to those convicted of high treason or murder.

As many members know, in Canadian prisons, a large number of those serving life sentences for murder have the right to apply under the faint hope clause or may be able to do so in the next few years. They will retain that right. Second, the amendments will also restrict the application procedure in order to set aside less deserving applications and to establish restrictions as to when and how many times an offender can submit an application under the faint hope clause.

These new restrictions will apply to offenders who are already serving a life sentence, those about to be sentenced to life imprisonment and those charged but not yet convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder or high treason. These restrictions will apply to such murderers as Paul Bernardo, if he were to attempt, after the new rules come into force, to make an application under the faint hope clause. People like Paul Bernardo will find it even more difficult to obtain an early parole and will have fewer opportunities to apply.

By proposing these changes to the Criminal Code in order to prevent anyone who commits a murder after the provisions take effect from applying for parole under the faint hope clause, and by tightening up the application procedure for those already in the system, we are acknowledging the suffering of the families and loved ones of murder victims.

These changes will save families the pain of attending multiple parole eligibility hearings and having to relive over and over again the intense emotions that are brought up by seeing the person who turned their lives upside down and took the life of someone close to them.

The changes we are proposing also take into account the concerns of Canadians, who are shocked to learn that, through the faint hope clause, the sentence given when a murderer is found guilty is not always the sentence he will serve. I would like to add that these changes show, once again, that this government is determined to protect Canadians by ensuring that the most dangerous criminals serve their full sentences.

As the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said last week outside the House, the proposed changes are another example of our government delivering on its commitment to strengthening Canada's criminal justice system and following through on our tackling crime agenda, by standing up for victims of crime, and putting the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.

I would like to talk about this in a little more detail, since I think it is important for members to have some background on these proposals.

As it stands, under the Criminal Code, anyone who is found guilty of high treason or murder in the first or second degree, must be sentenced to imprisonment for life with a long period before being eligible for parole. In the case of first-degree murder or high treason, an offender who is found guilty must serve 25 years before being eligible to apply to the National Parole Board for parole.

In the case of second-degree murder, the offender must serve 10 years of the sentence before applying for parole. However, there are two circumstances under which the ineligibility period may be extended. First, if an offender is found guilty of an offence under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the ineligibility period is 25 years, the same as for first-degree murder. Second, a sentencing judge who decides to increase the ineligibility period because of the murderer's character, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the offence or any recommendation of the jury may determine that the period is to end after 10 to 25 years of the sentence have been served.

Under the Criminal Code's faint hope clause, those who commit high treason or murder may apply for their parole ineligibility period to be reduced after serving 15 years of their sentence. Currently, applying is a three-stage process. Procedural changes proposed in Bill C-36 would modify each of those stages.

The three stages are as follows. First, the applicant presents an application to a superior court judge, who reviews the case, then decides whether the applicant can move on to the next stage. In the current system, if the judge finds that the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed, the judge authorizes the applicant to move on to the next stage.

Some courts have said that it is relatively easy for an applicant to meet the review criteria, so we are changing them to make it harder for offenders to meet the criteria. From now on, offenders will have to show that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed. This criterion will exclude the least deserving applicants. If an applicant's application is rejected at the first stage, he may re-apply two years later, unless the judge has imposed a longer waiting period. We will increase that waiting period to five years.

In other words, an offender who is not eligible for parole for 25 years, for example, will be able to submit only two applications under the faint hope clause: the first after serving 15 years and the second after serving 20 years. For comparison's sake, the faint hope clause now permits offenders to apply five times: after serving 15 years, 17 years, 19 years, 21 years and 23 years of a sentence.

Changing that timeframe from two years to five years will allow victims' families to predict when a hearing under the faint hope clause will be held. This change will also reduce the trauma that is often felt as a result of these hearings.

At the second stage of the current process under the faint hope clause, applicants whose request is granted at the first stage must convince a 12-member jury that they should be allowed to apply for early parole. When the jury unanimously approves an applicant's request, it must indicate when the offender can apply for early parole. If the jury rejects an applicant's request, he may apply again two years later, to a judge, unless the jury has specified a longer period of time. We will also increase that timeframe to five years.

Thus, after the period of time stipulated by the jury, an applicant whose request is approved may move on to the third stage, that is, applying to the National Parole Board for early parole.

Under the current legislation, offenders can apply for parole under the faint hope clause anytime after serving 15 years of their sentence. We will change that, making applications under the faint hope clause subject to a three-month time limit for filing. This means that offenders who are eligible to apply for parole under the faint hope clause must do so within three months of their eligibility date. If they fail to do so for whatever reason within the three-month timeframe, they must wait the full five years before they can apply.

As I mentioned earlier, the procedural changes I have just described, the strict eligibility requirements, the new three-month deadline for applying and the five-year waiting period will apply only to offenders already in the system. In other words, these changes will apply only to offenders who have committed murder, are arrested for murder or are convicted of murder before the amendments take effect. Offenders who commit murder after this bill comes into force will not be able to take advantage of the faint hope regime.

Since the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code is incorporated by reference in the National Defence Act, all the proposed changes I have just described will apply to members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of a serious offence under that act.

Before I conclude, I would like to remind the members of this House about the controversy that has swirled around the faint hope clause for a long time and that gave rise to the amendments proposed in Bill C-36.

Since the first application was made under this regime in 1987, Canadians have repeatedly made the point that the faint hope clause seems to allow people convicted of the most serious crimes to serve less time than they were sentenced to.

Ordinary Canadians have a hard time understanding how the most violent offenders—murderers—can get early parole, when the fundamental objectives of sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender from committing other offences and protect society by keeping convicted criminals off the streets.

In short, the existence of the faint hope regime and the apparent ease with which people convicted of the worst crimes imaginable can take advantage of it erode public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. They also undermine the government's commitment to enhance the safety and security of Canadians by keeping violent offenders in custody for longer periods.

Our government is taking action to deliver on its commitment to ensure that offenders who are found guilty of a crime serve a sentence that reflects the severity of that crime. Our government is also respecting its commitment to ensure there is truth in sentencing. Canadians will no longer wonder how a murderer who was supposed to be serving a sentence with a parole ineligibility period could be released early.

The issues related to sentencing are complex, and the current government believes they are very important. The proposed changes are necessary. Canadians have demanded that we make them. Many people believe that too often, offenders seem to fall through the cracks of the Canadian justice system without serving their full sentence. Canadians, myself included, think that the sentence imposed, including the applicable parole ineligibility period, should be served in full.

The approach set out in Bill C-36 will restore people's faith in our justice system. For years now, Canadians have been telling us that they want a strong criminal justice system. They want us to take decisive measures to fight the growing threat of violent crime by passing laws that will keep our communities safe. Our government has promised to tackle crime and improve safety, and we have kept that promise by proposing significant measures, such as the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

Recently, in Bill C-14, we proposed measures to fight organized crime. In Bill C-15, we proposed measures to apply mandatory minimum penalties to serious drug-related crimes. We are justifiably proud of these measures and the many other changes we have proposed. As we have said in the House, we are protecting the interests of Canadians who urged us to get tough on crime.

We are asking the members of the House to help us make our communities safer. We are asking for the support of members on both sides of the House to pass this legislative measure as quickly as possible. Let us focus on protecting Canadians and restoring their faith in the justice system by adopting the measures set out in Bill C-36, which will help to eliminate what many have called a loophole for those sentenced to life.

Bill C-36 would get rid of that loophole by striking a fair balance between respect for the law and respect for the rights of family members and victims. I urge all of my colleagues to support our proposed legislation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell the House how many people are convicted, on an annual basis, for murder in our country?

Could he tell the House how many people have been wrongfully convicted on murder charges in the last while and have had their sentences reversed?

How many applications are there, on an annual basis, on this faint hope clause? Out of those faint hope clause applications, how many people actually succeed in their applications?

Finally, is there any set of circumstances where he could see the efficacy of the faint hope clause?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this question, which is to his credit.

I would point out that our bill simply meets the needs of the public.

Someone who is not a lawyer and is not familiar with the judicial system might read in the newspaper that an individual has been convicted of first or second degree murder, and then some 10 years later learn—because we often live in the same city for many years—that the offender has been released from prison. Many people might be upset by this.

When one is not familiar with the judicial system and hears a judge sentence someone to 25 years, one expects the offender to serve 25 years in prison. However, that offender might be released after 15 or 16 years, and that can be very upsetting.

Another goal of our bill is to prevent victims from having to go through these situations over and over. Current legislation allows five parole applications. This bill allows only two.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked some very specific questions and did not get an answer to any one of them, so I will go over the questions again.

First, how many people are convicted on an annual basis?

Second, how many people are wrongfully convicted?

Third, how many people make a faint hope clause application? It is a hearing that they must go before and show that they are entitled to consideration before it is actually granted.

Fourth, how many people actually succeed in their applications on the faint hope clause?

A factual response on each one would be very useful. If the hon. member is not immediately familiar with those numbers, I would appreciate it if he could undertake to the House to deposit those numbers on the floor of the House at some future date, hopefully, in the very near future.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understood my colleague's question.

I would point out that our government has only one goal, and that is to protect victims and victims' families, those who have lost a loved one as the result of a first degree murder.

No matter how many people are affected, I have full confidence in the courts, as does my colleague. When a jury finds someone guilty, that person is guilty. When an offender is sentenced to 25 years in a federal penitentiary, I imagine that the wife who lost her husband or the family that lost their daughter in a first degree murder expect the sentence to be served.

Regardless of the number of people, it is a question of justice for the victims.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us try a third time. These questions are extraordinarily simple.

First, how many people are convicted in Canada, on an annual basis, of murder?

Second, how many wrongful convictions of murder are set aside on an annual basis in Canada?

Third, how many applications are there for this faint hope clause?

Fourth, how many of those applications are successful?

The hon. member, with greatest respect, wanders off into the wild blue yonder of all kinds of irrelevancies. All I want is a very simple answer to those four questions.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is very interested in the number of murderers who have or have not been paroled and in the number of murderers who have been convicted. It is not a question of numbers. The victims, not the numbers, should be the basis for the bill.

No matter which government presents a bill, the purpose is always to protect society, to protect families and above all to ensure that justice is not just shrugged off and that murderers who are supposed to be in jail are not now out in society.

That is why, whatever the bill, it is not just about numbers, and even if just one person benefits, that is fine. The victims or the victims' families must always benefit. The numbers are not important when it comes to voting for a bill. In voting for a bill we vote for a principle that we have identified and we promise to fix the problem, in this case the problem presented with Bill C-36. I would like to mention that it was in our program. We are pleased to have it in our program and we are fine with that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pose a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary on this issue. We have some concerns about the evidence provided and the background and he might be able to help us with that.

With respect to the faint hope clause, could he tell us which jurisdictions have this clause and which ones do not?

Also, concerns have been raised by some in the prison guard community about how this would affect their workplace. Some people are concerned that the changes might have an effect on their safety as prison guards.

Could he address those question?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for also being interested in this bill.

As I mentioned, this bill has the sole purpose of restoring faith in the justice system. We must restore faith in the justice system for those who have lost a loved one.

The purpose of this bill is so that when the courts, through a jury, find someone guilty of first degree murder and sentence them to jail, the murderer will not be back out in society because of an overly permissive system.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the same set of questions three times. The hon. member has yet to answer any one of them, so I will take it as a reasonable assumption that he does not know.

If he does not know, could he at least undertake to the House to deposit the answers to the questions on the floor of the House? It is no dishonour to not know the answers to those questions.

I want to make the point that in listening to the debate, an average, informed Canadian citizen would have to ask how many people would be affected by this. Is it one? Is it 100? Is it none at all? Could he please just answer the question?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice has 30 seconds left.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will tell the member that it is not a question of numbers. What is important is to protect the victims, and that is what we are doing.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I support the bill going to committee for study. However, why are even dealing with this right now? We have one week to go before Parliament breaks for the summer, not to return until the fall. We have an EI crisis. We have a March motion for EI reform that passed the House of Commons, which has been ignored by the Conservatives. We have an isotopes crisis wherein cancer patients cannot get treatment.

There should be a bill before the House on EI, or on isotopes, not this legislation. We only have one week to go. Why are the Conservatives not dealing with the most serious problems facing Canadians right now?

The parliamentary secretary indicated that the reason the bill was before the House was to give people greater confidence in the justice system. We will have to go through this, analyze it and see if there really is a problem. If there is a problem, obviously it needs to be fixed, but we have to identify a problem before we simply start to change legislation that has been in force since 1975, with one amendment in 1997.

We are dealing with section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada. What everyone has to remember is that when someone gets a life sentence, it is a life sentence. All it currently says under section 745 is that people cannot apply for parole until they serve 25 years. With the faint hope clause in the proposed amendment, all we are discussing is whether someone can apply in theory for parole earlier than the 25 years. If we wish to change the law to, in essence, reduce the standard or eliminate the standard, there really needs to be a problem. What is it?

Under section 745, for first degree murder or high treason, it says, “without eligibility for parole until the person has served twenty-five years”. For second degree murder, a person serves at least 10 years.

The faint hope clause was initially added in 1976, when the death penalty was eliminated and it was part of a compromise at the time. What may be interesting for people to know, or perhaps remember, is that at the time the average sentence for first or second degree murderers, who were not subjected to the death penalty, was seven years before they were eligible to apply for parole. What happened was that changed from seven to twenty-five as part of this compromise.

A lot of our western democracy friends, England, Belgium, a number of others, allow the chance of parole after 15 years. Once again, if we are to change a law that has been in force for years, what is the problem? Where are the statistics? What are we trying to solve, or is this simply ideology, which I do not think is an appropriate way to run a justice system?

With respect to the faint hope clause, substantial amendments came into force under Prime Minister Chrétien's government, under Justice Minister Rock, in 1997. We have to examine those very carefully in coming to this conclusion and answering the question on whether there is currently a problem. Let us look at that.

Under section 745.01, people, after serving 15 years of a sentence, may apply, but they do not have to apply and most do not, to seek to have the years of imprisonment, in terms of their eligibility, reduced. It is not them getting out. It is not saying their sentence is reduced. It is saying that the time period when they can apply for parole is reduced. How do they get there? If we look at the various provisions, they have to apply, pursuant to section 745.6, to a judicial review and they do that in writing. That stage has nothing to do with the victim's family. It is a judge who reads material and then decides whether there is enough reasonable evidence.

The judge has to consider various criteria in determining whether or not this can be talked about. Many people have used incorrectly the example of Clifford Olson or other multiple murderers and said that we cannot let them out. I agree, but they cannot get out under this clause, because subsection 2 says that a person who has been convicted of more than one murder may not make an application. Those people cannot even try under this legislation.

First, a judge, based on written material, has to make a legal determination that on a balance of probabilities, a jury would actually allow for some reduction. The onus is actually on the convicted offender to prove to a judge there is a reasonable possibility this would occur. If the judge finds that there is no such possibility, then nothing happens. If a judge finds there is a possibility, then he goes to a jury.

When the Conservatives talk about the public determining what should occur, or the public having confidence in the justice system, it is the public, not a judge and not the National Parole Board, but the public as represented by a jury, that actually determines whether or not the person is entitled, not to get out of prison, but to have the eligibility for parole reduced from 25 years, in the example of first degree murder, to something lower. It is a jury of our peers that makes that determination. Also, it has to be unanimous. If anybody on the jury determines that it is not appropriate, it does not happen.

Essentially the Conservatives are attempting to take away from a jury of Canadian citizens who have to reach a unanimous decision, the ability to simply reduce the possibility from 25 years to something lower, where the offender can then apply to get parole, but then still have to get the full permission of the National Parole Board. There is no guarantee. It is simply whether it can be done sooner.

Really, the Conservatives are trying to take away power from a jury to unanimously decide that something in theory could be reduced by way of when somebody could apply to the National Parole Board. That is what is happening here.

In terms of what the jury decides, a jury decides various factors. A number of these factors are enumerated. One of them is the applicant's conduct while serving a sentence. This is all new.

There will be hearings. If the bill passes and goes to committee, and I expect it will, we want to hear from multiple groups about it. My understanding is that prison guards use this as a method of keeping order. What would they say about it? I assume that people who want to rehabilitate these offenders, which is one of our goals and I will come back to that, would be against it. Let us hear from these various groups. Let us hear the evidence. Let us also hear what the problem is. I will address that in terms of numbers.

Before we get to the actual legislation, once again the jury decides unanimously whether this is even possible, in terms of whether somebody is allowed to go to the National Parole Board earlier. I will provide the jury questions and members can decide whether they are very soft.

On of them is, “Do you unanimously agree that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, ought to be reduced, having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence, the nature of the murder for which he was convicted and the victim impact statements, yes or no?”

If it is not unanimously yes, it is over. If it is unanimously yes by a jury composed of Canadian citizens, then it can go to the National Parole Board, but there is a second jury question, because in terms of the reduction of the sentence for when a person can apply for parole, a jury votes a second time. Essentially the jury has to agree by two-thirds what the reduced period of time will be, not for when the person gets out, but for when the person can apply for parole.

The second question is, “Are no less than two-thirds of you satisfied that the applicant should be eligible for parole immediately, having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence, the nature of the murder for which he was convicted and the victim impact statements, yes or no?”

Then, the third question is, “Having decided that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced from 25 years, what lesser number of years do you, at least two-thirds of you, order substituted?”

We are getting a unanimous decision by a jury as to whether it could be reduced at all, and then two-thirds of the jury have to decide what the reduction is for when the person can simply apply for parole. If the jury can jump through all of those hurdles, it then still goes to the National Parole Board for the board to decide whether the person gets parole at all, and if so on what conditions.

Once again, with that current system which is very strict, the question is, with one week to go before Parliament breaks for the summer, why are we dealing with this legislation rather than economic legislation, isotopes legislation or employment insurance legislation? What is so urgent?

In terms of the statute that the government is proposing, the first section proposes to abolish entirely these provisions, not retroactively, prospectively, to abolish them entirely. There will be repercussions for that, whether it is rehabilitation, prison guards or whatever it may be.

We have an obligation to listen to these people, to get their opinions before simply deciding if something should pass the House. That is what the committee process is for. Once again I do support sending the bill to committee.

In terms of a change of legal standard for the persons who are currently incarcerated, they wish to change it from “reasonable prospect” to “substantial likelihood”. It is phraseology. At the end of the day, the judge can decide that there is no appreciable difference, it means the same thing and the case law will build up in terms of what that means. Essentially, I do not think that is much of a change. I personally have no difficulty with that change, but I do not think it is going to do anything. Once again, I do not know why we are spending time in Parliament now, during an economic crisis, dealing with this issue.

In terms of comments, the John Howard Society currently does not support the repeal of the faint hope clause. The society said, “Our position is that we're not sure that this is something that does need fixing or repealing”.

Let us hear from the government why it is doing this. What is the evidence?

In fact, the society is concerned that this could lead to increased violence in prisons because there is no incentive for prisoners to be on their best behaviour because there is no possibility that they might, even in theory although remote, be able to apply earlier for parole.

In 2008 there were 109 offenders who were successful in such an application. Of those, only a handful were sent back to jail for breaching parole conditions, not for the commission of any serious crimes. The question is, since this is a recent 2008 statistic, what is the urgency as to why we are dealing with this in the House of Commons now rather than dealing with economic issues or isotope issues?

There is also a recent quote from the Minister of Justice. His rationale for why we are dealing with this now is, “We cannot bring back those who have been so callously murdered” . The justice minister said, “We cannot repair the hearts of those who have lost loved ones. But what we can do is ensure that those who commit the most serious crime, taking the life of another, pay the price and thereby validate the life lost”.

I do not disagree with the quote, but if the rationale as to why we are here rather than dealing with economic issues is vengeance, I do not think that is a substantial reason for not dealing with isotopes, EI and economic issues with one week left in this sitting of Parliament.

Prison guards in particular would be a group that we need to hear from. I am personally concerned about what happens in prisons with incarcerated individuals. I have a couple of examples.

We talk about rehabilitation. A former inmate who is out and I understand is leading a productive life, said that before being released he has spent his entire adult life in jail. He said that the possibility of early release was the only thing that provided hope and the motivation to change. He said that he thought for the longest time that he would never get out of jail, so he created his own freedom by getting involved in drugs. He said that realizing that he had an opportunity to get out early, gave him a different attitude. He gave up drugs, pursued his education, re-established contact with his mother and two younger brothers and began exploring his native roots. He said he looked at what he could do to better himself. He got out and became a productive citizen.

He did all that, in terms of rehabilitation, because of the theoretical, although difficult, possibility not that his sentence could be reduced, but that he could apply earlier for parole to the National Parole Board.

I went through the current statistics. In 2008, there were 109 inmates released with no serious recommission of offences. Once again, why are we considering this bill, with the current economic crisis and a week left to go in Parliament?

There are other important statistics. If the government were serious about the criminal justice system, in terms of an overall package, it would be taking into account other goals, not just retribution, but things such as rehabilitation and deterrence. We should have a very sophisticated analysis from the Conservatives, including from the Minister of Justice, as to why they are not doing this rather than this blunt instrument approach.

In terms of the criminal justice system, we have heard from many experts in the last couple of weeks that it is broken down. The prisons are overcrowded and it costs over $100,000 a year for each inmate. There are serious addiction issues. About half of all convicts committed their offence while intoxicated by either drugs or alcohol. Four to five people going into prisons have an addiction issue. Yet, there is a clear admission, as we heard in committee this week, that they cannot stop the drug trafficking in prisons. Why? Where is the legislation fixing that?

There are mental health issues. Thirty-nine per cent of Ontario inmates have mental health issues. There is an admission there is not the capacity at present to give them treatment. Where is the legislation on that?

The reason this is very important is that over 90% of all convicted persons in our jails get out. Our focus should be our responsibility to the Canadian public to ensure that when inmates are released, they have received the treatment that has been required for them. Where is the legislation on that?

Earlier this week I had the honour of speaking in this House on the legislation regarding the sex offender registry. I recommended many additional changes to make that legislation stronger because I thought it was too weak.

What I do question is, with a week to go in this sitting of Parliament, why we are dealing with this legislation when nothing has been shown by anyone as to why it is urgent, especially with the current economic and isotope crises.

We have to consider this entire issue from a reasonable perspective. There will be committee hearings if the bill passes, and I believe it will. However, we also have to look at the broader perspective, in terms of a criminal justice analysis. It is not sufficient for a western democracy such as Canada to simply have the justice minister use retribution as the rationale for changing a law that has been in force since 1975.

We need to look at the statistics and approach the problem not with rhetoric or any other form of motivation, but in a reasonable and rational manner.

I have no difficulty with this bill going to committee, but I expect to see good evidence, hear witnesses and have considered reflection as to what this legislation should truly do, rather than simply a rationale of being tougher.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Recently the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville rose in the House to express his support for private member's bill, Bill C-391, standing in the name of our colleague from Portage—Lisgar. On June 10, the member for Yorkton—Melville sought unanimous consent to withdraw his Bill C-301.

I note that the subcommittee on private members' business has yet to report back on the votability of a number of items within the order of precedence, including Bill C-391.

While the two bills are substantially different, and our rules and practices would warrant that Bill C-391 remain votable, people do play politics in the House, and unfortunately sometimes it is politics that governs procedural decisions. It would be unfortunate if the presence of Bill C-301 was used as a political reason to impede the votability of Bill C-391.

I have spoken with the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, who cannot be here today, so on his behalf I seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-301

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It does not sound like there is unanimous consent, and I am not sure that the member would be able to do it on behalf of another member anyway.

As there is no consent, the Chair will take it under advisement as to whether or not that type of procedure is admissible.

We will move on with debate.

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be a bit soft on criminals. I am sure that the John Howard Society is against this too, knowing what it stands for, but someone has to start getting tough on these people.

I do not know if my colleague has ever attended a section 745 hearing, but I have, and it puts the victim right back to the beginning. Do these people need to have this done to them again and again? Very few people come up for a section 745 hearing, but when they do, it is devastating, it hurts, and it is just disgusting.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given her first comment in terms of being soft on criminals, obviously the member was not in the House of Commons when I gave my speech earlier this week on the sex offender registry. I was challenging the government to get tougher on its own legislation.

We are dealing with this legislation without any statistics, without any background information, without hearing from experts, without anything suggesting there is currently a problem. In 2008, 109 people were released and there were no offences other than parole violations.

I want to know why we are here now, with a week to go in Parliament, and we are not dealing with serious issues such as EI or medical isotopes.

I would have no difficulty addressing this legislation in the fall or later on. Should we study it? Yes. When we are in an economic crisis, and with a week to go, why are we not dealing with the important issues I just mentioned?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member whether there have been any long-term studies on the impact of such legislation? Would it be more likely for an offender to reoffend or not? Would there be more incidents of violence in jails or less? Is there any academic research showing which country has the faint hope clause? What would the impact be, not just in a five year time frame, but within a 30 year or 50 year time frame? Have there been any good international studies, or even studies within Canada, regarding this matter?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what is currently available, my chief concern at present is that the government has produced this legislation during this crisis without any expert evidence in terms of a problem. I think it is trying to turn the channel from the economy to criminal justice issues, when frankly they are not urgent.

I have a study on how the views of the public are shaped in terms of the media and political parties. There is a study by Ms. Julie Belinda Erb, which says essentially that there is a misperception by the public in terms of offenders reoffending. They really do not. For rehabilitated people who are released early with conditions, the chances of reoffending are actually very low. There is a whole range of views that are not really tied to statistics in terms of what people believe is happening in society based on what politicians and the media say.

My simple point is that I am not for or against; I am in favour of a study, but let us see what the actual intellectual arguments are rather than rhetoric.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on this bill. It is a matter that has come up from time to time.

I believe the last time it came up was in the early 1990s, and one of the issues was the public's perception of who criminals are. I recall at the time that a very large proportion of those who committed crimes in fact turned out to be family members and close friends as opposed to those people one might think would be bad from the get-go.

I want to ask the member if there is updated information, or is this the kind of information we should have from experts in committee?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent point. That is exactly the sort of information that must be produced in determining whether the law should be changed.

There are current statistics, which I am aware of and that I mentioned, in terms of who is going into prisons. They are people with addiction issues essentially. That is something that should be examined both in prisons, for rehabilitation purposes, but also in Canada.

It is true that the vast majority of murderers commit crimes on family members or someone they are close to. A lot of that is in the heat of passion. There is no excuse for it, and I will not make any no excuse for it. However, I am concerned that an ideology or a previous Reform Party position, call it what one will, is now being brought forward when we should be focusing on isotopes and the economy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brampton West will have four minutes left for questions and comments the next time this bill is before the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-36, the serious time for the most serious crime act, the objective of which is to restrict the eligibility of persons found guilty of treason or murder to apply for early parole. First, I will review the history of the faint hope clause, before speaking about the current procedure governing it and the changes proposed by Bill C-36.

Bill C-36 would modify the faint hope system. In 1976 the death penalty was abolished and murders were reclassified as first or second degree murder. Both are punishable by life in prison, but have different parole ineligibility periods. For first degree murder, the murderer must have served at least 25 years of the sentence imposed. For second degree, he must have served at least 10 years of the sentence, except in the following cases: when it involves a murder or deliberate murder under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the period is automatically 25 years or when, given the nature of the offence, circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the offence or any recommendation of the jury, the judge sets a period of between 10 and 25 years.

The faint hope clause, which is now found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, was adopted in 1976 to permit those who had already served at least 15 years of a life sentence to apply for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period. It had three main purposes: to offer some hope for offenders who demonstrated significant capacity for rehabilitation, to motivate good conduct in prison, and to recognize that it was not in the public interest to continue incarcerating certain offenders beyond a 15-year period. These were the principles at the time.

Under the initial procedure, the offender had to submit an application to the chief justice of the province where the murder was committed, asking to reduce the parole ineligibility period imposed at sentencing. Next, the chief justice had to appoint a superior court judge who was assigned to form a jury of 12 citizens to hear the application. If two thirds of the jury members were in agreement, the period could be reduced. Upon the expiry of the new period, the offender could submit a parole application directly to the National Parole Board.

In 1997 there were major changes to the faint hope system. First, the procedure was changed to prevent multiple murderers from applying if one of the murders was committed after the date the bill came into force. Second, these changes required the chief justice to do a preliminary review and examine each case before forming a jury, so as to exclude applications that did not present a real possibility of success. Finally, these changes required a unanimous jury verdict for the period in question to be reduced.

In 1999, the Code was amended again by adding section 745.01, whereby a judge, when imposing sentence, is obliged to make a statement for the benefit of the victims’ family and relatives concerning the existence and nature of the faint hope clause.

There are three stages to the current faint hope procedure: the review by the judge, unanimous approval of the jury, and the application to the National Parole Board.

First, the requester must convince the chief justice, or a designated judge, in the province of the conviction that there is a real possibility that the application will succeed. If the requester fails and the judge does not prohibit the filing of a new application, he may file a new application after two years, unless the judge sets a longer period for doing so. Second, the requester must convince a jury of 12 citizens to decide, unanimously, to reduce the parole ineligibility period.

First of all, it must be determined whether the requester qualifies,and this decision rests with a judge. If the judge concludes there is no chance of the application being accepted, he denies the requester the right. If he allows this right, the offender must submit his application to a jury composed of 12 citizens.

The jury must be unanimous in deciding to authorize parole. If the jury refuses without prohibiting the presentation of a new application, another application may be submitted after two years or after a longer period set by the jury. If the jury accepts, however, it must set a new reduced period.

Third, at the end of the new period set by the jury, the requester may submit an application to the National Parole Board.

Let us look at the success rate for faint hope applications. As of April 9, 2009, of the 265 applications submitted, 140 requesters had obtained a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. The National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants, of whom 13 subsequently returned to prison, 3 had been deported, 11 died, one was out on bail, one was in temporary detention, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions.

At the present time, over 4,000 persons are serving life sentences in Canada. As of April 9, 2009, 1,001 prisoners were could apply for early parole eligibility. Of those, 459 had already served at least 15 years of their sentence and so could submit an application, and 542 had yet to reach the 15-year threshold but will be able to apply in the future. On average, it will be possible for 43 of these 1,001 offenders to file an application each year.

Bill C-36 proposes some changes. In short, it proposes two main amendments. First, it proposes to completely abolish, effective the day that the amendment comes into force, the right of all offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole. Thus, effective the day that the proposed legislation comes into force, the right of offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole would be completely done away with.

Second, the bill proposes tougher rules for such applications for all offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason before the day that the amendment comes into force, including those who are currently serving a sentence.

This restriction to which I refer would comprise four amendments to the present procedure. First, tougher selection criteria will apply for judicial review. From now on, offenders will have to convince a judge that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed.

Second, the minimum waiting period for re-application if an offender has been refused will be five years. That is, the present two year minimum would be raised to five years.

Third, there is a new five year waiting period before offenders may apply, if they have not done so within the new three month limitation.

Fourth, there is a new three month time limit, that is a window of opportunity of 90 days, during which offenders may apply or re-apply: after the date the amendment comes into effect for the 459 offenders currently eligible to apply; after 15 years for the 542 offenders who will become eligible to apply; after the newly extended five-year period for those who re-apply; and after five years for those who did not apply within the three month window.

What position will the Bloc Québécois take throughout the debate on this bill? Bill C-36 addresses the most serious crimes, such as premeditated murder, that have the biggest impact on victims and affect the population as a whole. These most serious crimes deserve the most serious punishment, so those found guilty can be put in jail for life. Lenient sentences and parole granted too soon—after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, for example—undermine the credibility of the legal system and reinforce the feeling that criminals get better treatment than victims. But the Bloc Québécois also believes that punishment should not be the only goal of the legal system, at the expense of reintegration and rehabilitation.

Parole, even for murderers, is an important part of their reintegration and rehabilitation process because sooner or later, they end up back in society. When they do, it is crucial for them to have benefited from suitable tools to help them return to society in a way that is safe for everyone.

Bill C-36, which focuses on parole, could have complex consequences on the reintegration and rehabilitation of certain criminals.

In an effort to address this issue, the Bloc Québécois will study Bill C-36 in committee even though we have some concerns about it at this point.

There are still some issues we need to discuss. Are the reasons the faint hope clause was created still valid? The faint hope clause, which allows murderers to apply for early parole, gives them a reason to behave well in prison. What would happen if the clause were eliminated? Would it put corrections officers in greater danger at the hands of people who have nothing left to lose?

Will Bill C-36 sound the knell for cases of successful rehabilitation? There are examples such as that of Michel Dunn. He is a lawyer who killed a colleague but benefited from the faint hope clause and became an in-reach worker helping criminals reintegrate into society. Will this now be a thing of the past? We must remember that he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for 20 years for murder. He behaved well. He was reintegrated and is now helping prisoners.

The Bloc expects to take advantage of the study to raise these questions and get answers that will help enlighten the debate. It is only then that we will take a final position.

The most serious crimes under the Criminal Code are likely to lead to a life sentence. In the case of some crimes, such as treason and murder, there is no other sentence but life in prison. That is the minimum sentence.

There are a number of categories of homicide—murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder is the most serious category of homicide. It is a premeditated act intended to kill or fatally wound or to commit an illegal act in the knowledge that it will cause death.

There are two types of murder—first degree murder and second degree murder. First degree murder is premeditated and wilful. It is planned, in other words.

Other types of murder are automatically categorized as first degree murder in the Criminal Code. This is the case with the murder of a police officer or a prison guard or when murders occur in a plane hijacking, sexual assault or a hostage taking.

With manslaughter, there is no intention to kill, but there is negligence. Firing a shot through a hedge without thinking there might be someone on the other side is an example.

The Criminal Code is clear. Whoever commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of a criminal act and shall be condemned to life in prison.

Only the period of time before an individual may be granted parole may vary according to whether it is first degree or second degree murder.

For manslaughter, the sentence is life in prison, but there is no minimum period of ineligibility for parole. The regular rules apply.

We must come back to what is called the faint hope clause. It is important to the current debate. In my backgrounder, we saw that there have been a number of amendments over the years. Eligibility for parole has been made harder to achieve. The Bloc has no problem with this approach. However, one of the reasons that criminals have access to parole is to reward their behaviour in prison, if you will. It is rather difficult to reward criminals. However, employees and corrections officers working with criminals need some support from the law for their actions.

One way of getting there is to encourage criminals to behave. Parole plays a role in this. We must ensure that criminals who want to be rehabilitated and who work hard, even in prison, to improve their lives have a hope of getting out because, in any event, they will be released some day.

Even if parole is abolished, these criminals will have served their 25 years some day and will re-enter society. We must ensure, therefore, that they are given the support and rehabilitation they need to become good citizens once they re-enter society.

That is the reality we are facing when we analyze Bill C-36 and that is why we must ask all the necessary questions and ensure that all the in-depth studies have been done.

I cited the case of Mr. Dunn, who was a murderer but was reintegrated very successfully. Parole enabled him to become a better citizen and return to society. He became a criminal justice social worker who helps to reintegrate other criminals. His is a fine example. Could a bill like this nullify all the effort and improvements criminals might make in prison? That is what we need to consider.

The tough on crime philosophy is not the Bloc’s philosophy or ideology, and it was not the philosophy our ancestors advocated over the years.

Why do we have a justice system with a judge and the possibility of a jury? It is in order to always find the best punishment for the crime that was committed. That is the result we want. When we try to replace it with minimum sentences and overturn the legal system our ancestors developed to produce the society we have today, we should really ask ourselves some questions.

Often we do things because they are politically easy. These are good decisions but the media are omnipresent. Sometimes they embellish events for their own purposes. It helps them sell newspapers and attract viewers for their newscasts. We must understand, though, that there is a need for balance and the justice system has always ensured this balance. That is what our ancestors wanted.

There are many other justice systems around the world, but they are not the one our ancestors chose. The government is trying to get rid of our system in which there are independent judges and juries made up of citizens who judge their peers. That is the system we have developed. I think we are heading off in the wrong direction every time we are tempted by events in the media to change the entire legal system by imposing minimum sentences and completely abolishing the parole system, without considering its benefits.

I asked an eminent colleague of mine, a criminal lawyer, whether he submitted requests for legislative changes to the government. Does the Bar do that? Sometimes it happens and reforms are made. Usually, though, it is politicians who decide for partisan reasons to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code in order to get some political peace.

Once again, that is dangerous for the democratic system we enjoy. The entire justice system is, in fact, part of our democratic system. The decision to supplant judges by including minimum sentences everywhere in the Criminal Code is motivated by media coverage of certain appalling cases. Often, we need to realize that the case focused on by the media is an extreme case.

The justice system obviously needs to strike a balance. It is for that reason that the symbol of justice is a set of scales. It is all about striking a balance. It is true that mistakes can be made sometimes.

Do we want the innocent to pay for a few mistakes that may have been made? The Bloc will always be completely opposed to that. That is not the type of society that our ancestors bequeathed to us. We are changing the course of history because, somewhere, some politicians decided that being tough on crime pays off. They looked at what is happening in the United States with the Republicans filling up jails to make citizens feel safer. The result is quite the opposite. There are more crimes committed per capita in the United States than in Canada. Quebec, which supports reintegration, has the lowest crime rate in North America. That is the reality.

The Bloc Québécois will act responsibly. With Bill C-36 it will try to adopt a balanced approach in order to have a justice system that lives up to our ancestors' vision.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because this is the first round of debate on this bill, I would like to seek unanimous consent to split my speaking time with the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the members of the House for agreeing to that.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, which deals with the faint-hope clause. The faint-hope clause is called that for a very good reason. When we read the process that an offender, someone who is incarcerated, must go through in order to apply for the faint-hope clause, it is a very tough process.

I have been looking up the information on the justice department website. Quoting from the website, this is the process that an offender has to go through:

Upon application, the offender must first convince a justice they would have a reasonable prospect of success with a jury that must unanimously decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment the offender must serve without eligibility for parole. The offender must then convince the jury that they should have the right to make an early application for parole to the NPB. Finally, the offender must convince the NPB that they are unlikely to endanger public safety if released.

If parole is granted, the offender remains under supervision for their entire life unless parole is revoked, in which case the person would be returned to prison. Any breach of the offender’s parole conditions or a conviction for a new offence may also result in the return of that person to prison.

Just to the deal with the facts of what is before us, since 1997, and as of April 2009, there were 991 offenders who were deemed eligible to apply for such a judicial review that I just spoke about. Of those who were eligible, there were 174 court decisions in which 144 became eligible for earlier parole, and of these 144, 131 were granted parole. So I think we can see that the existing provision on the faint-hope clause is a very onerous one and rigorous in the tests that a person must establish in going through various judicial reviews and finally to the National Parole Board.

That is all for good reason, because we are talking about very serious crimes that have been committed. I would certainly echo the comments of my colleague from the Bloc who talked about our justice system overall. We do have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that our justice system is fair and balanced and that rehabilitation is certainly part of that.

I have to state that the NDP has very grave concerns about this bill as it seeks to eliminate the faint-hope clause, because we believe it will seriously undermine the fairness and the balance that we have in our judicial system. In fact, I find it quite ironic that just a few days ago in the press there were documents released from Library and Archives Canada dating back to 1976, secret cabinet documents that showed that the prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “objected strongly to the removal of this provision, [the faint-hope clause,] asserting that the proposed legislative package”—a product of various compromises to win public backing and to outflank the tough-on-crime Conservatives—“was already 'neanderthal' enough without adding to its repressive character”.

That is from a cabinet document in 1976. I guess not much has changed in that today here again we face a Conservative government that is all wrapped up in a very tough on crime agenda that is simply about catering to a very narrow base. Certainly within the NDP we take this very seriously. We have a responsibility to represent the whole system. We have a responsibility to speak out for that fairness and balance.

The faint hope clause might not be popular. There are obviously cases that one can draw on to show very grievous situations and very violent situations, but it is there as a faint hope on the basis that there are individuals who, because of time served and the fact that they have been rehabilitated, may be in a position where to release them early and to allow that gradual release back into society is actually something beneficial.

Here I would quote from the John Howard Society of Canada, from its “Presumptive Gradual Release” paper of 2007, which talks about this issue of the balance and what parole and early release is about. It says:

The research literature shows clearly, however, that those who are involved in good gradual release programs re-offend less frequently than those who are not involved in such programs. This is particularly true of higher-risk offenders.

In fact, it goes on to point out:

If well managed, programs of gradual release are the best method known to reduce recidivism. Failure to involve people in these programs places the community at greater risk and in so doing contravenes the purpose of the Act.

On the one hand, we are dealing here with the political optics that are put forward by the Conservative Party. It is just catering to this agenda of bringing in tougher and tougher laws and getting rid of the faint hope, without recognizing the damage that is being done to our judicial system.

We have to ensure that we have a judicial system that is fair and balanced, that also emphasizes rehabilitation. Otherwise, we are then sending people out onto the streets who will still be at great risk of reoffending. I think one thing we would agree on is that what we ultimately strive for is safety in our local communities. So what happens to these offenders is really important and cannot just be dismissed as a political campaign or a political talking point as we have seen over and over again with the bills that have been before us.

I know our caucus, the NDP caucus, has serious reservations about this bill. We believe the faint-hope clause is there for a purpose. It is something that is very hard to achieve but is there for those occasions where it is warranted and where a judicial review and a full process can show that in some circumstances there is good reason to allow limited early parole for a gradual reintegration into society, and that is something that serves the interests of society.

We are also very concerned about the rights of victims. Under the current process, there is a great deal of pressure put on families and victims in terms of the number of times they might have to appear if an application for a judicial review is applied for. So we will be bringing forward amendments to this bill, and our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, will be speaking later this day on some of the issues and concerns we have.

For the purposes of getting some of these amendments, we will allow this bill to go to committee. However, we have serious opposition to this bill in terms of what it stands for and what it would do to our justice system, and I think we should be able to speak honestly about this. Unfortunately, so much of this debate has now been dragged down to its lowest level of political messaging and a political ideological approach from the Conservative government. As New Democrats, we are not prepared to engage in that kind of politicization of our justice system. We are not prepared to undermine the balance that we strive for in our judicial system. So we find it very offensive that this kind of approach is being taken over and over again by the Conservative government.

In fact, it is kind of ironic that, on the one hand, we have a government that has brought in how many bills now? There are more than a dozen of these sort of boutique criminal justice amendment bills.

It is ironic that the Conservatives do that, on the one hand, and huff and puff, jump up and down, and make a big deal about it. Yet when they receive a court order to return someone like Mr. Abdelrazik, a specific court order ordering the government to abide by the law that has been laid down, they refuse to do so.

Even here today, the day before the decision comes to its full fruition, the government is still refusing that. Or we can look at things like the challenge on Insite in the downtown east side, where the government refuses to respect court decisions, or medical marijuana.

I find it incredibly ironic that, on the one hand, the Conservatives rush in with all these amendments, but on the other hand, they themselves think they are somehow above the law and can just ignore court decisions that are made.

In closing I would like to say that this bill, in its present form, is not acceptable to New Democrats. When it goes to committee, our justice critic will be seeking changes that we think will improve the situation for families and for victims. We know that discussion will take place at committee and we think we need to ensure that we maintain the fairness and balance we have in our justice system. We are not about to let the Conservative government begin to unravel that and create serious damage in our society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that in the last Parliament, I believe during the first session, there were a series of justice bills related to the Criminal Code. Then after prorogation, instead of having a series of bills, many of those were not reinstated at the same point. In fact, they were put into an omnibus type bill after there were complaints that the justice committee had been bogged down and was unable to keep up with the individual bills.

Now we find ourselves back in the same position where we have another series of bills. These clearly could have been included in an omnibus bill to allow the justice committee to have virtually the same witnesses to consider the issues of punishment, with which most of them deal.

Would the member care to opine as to why the government is not serious about dealing with these bills by putting them in a form which is most efficient for the Parliament of Canada?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The whole saga of the way the crime agenda has been promoted by the Conservatives is a political promotion. It is about the optics of what they are doing, not about addressing a serious legislative package.

In fact, many of the bills the Conservatives had in the previous Parliament they killed when they prorogued Parliament. Then they accused the opposition of delaying them. It was the role of the previous chair of the justice committee that stalled many of those bills coming forward. These antics have come more from the government in hijacking its own agenda.

In this current session the member is right. A series of criminal justice amendments could have been put together in an omnibus bill, which could have had a reasonable discussion through the justice committee. However, the Conservatives, I think for purely political partisan reasons, are trotting them out one at a time and then using that as leverage and pressure to put out their political agenda.

This is not the way to do public policy and it is not the way to do the public's business.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member for Vancouver East.

She mentioned the case of Mr. Abdelrazik, who is currently being detained in another country. The government was ordered by the court to repatriate him, which it is not doing, and it seems that it does not intend to do so in the near future. We have even heard that it may appeal the court's decision. Members will remember the recent case of Omar Khadr, who is currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. He is accused of criminal acts, but they occurred when he was a child soldier, which is recognized by the UN as a special case. Under UN regulations, the Canadian government could repatriate him because he is a Canadian citizen and was a child at the time of the alleged crimes. He was left in a prison at Guantanamo Bay for years to be tortured, even though the regulations and legislation would have allowed for his repatriation.

Under the circumstances, does my colleague not believe that the Conservative Party picks and chooses when to apply the law and order it is always talking about here in the House?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. It is a very selective law and order agenda and it is a very selective political agenda as to whose rights are deemed to be upheld.

How many times in the House have we raised questions around the situation of Mr. Khadr? How many times have we raised the desperate situation of Mr. Abdelrazik? We have been completely stonewalled and ignored by the government.

I think we are all aware of the terrible contradictions that are going on here. The government on the one hand chooses to be so repressive in its legislative regime, in terms of the Criminal Code, without regard to what the impact will be on our justice system. However, on the other hand, when there are individual cases and situations involving the personal dignity and human rights of people, the government has remained silent, in fact more than silent. It has stonewalled and refused to even abide by court decisions and legal parameters such as international law.

That is pretty horrifying, but we have come to expect that from the government unfortunately. All we can do is to keep the pressure on it to point out these contradictions and to try to change them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible for early parole. The short title of the legislation, creatively crafted by the Conservative government, is the “serious time for the most serious crime act”, which is a bit of a strong misnomer for the legislation.

From outset, the principle of the legislation, which is to eliminate the possibility of revision to parole for people who have committed murder or who are sentenced to life for high treason, is completely wrong. I am strongly opposed to the principle of the legislation. We are not well served by this process of a judicial review, of citizen review in fact, and the faint hope clause should not be part of our criminal justice system.

We have been well served by this. It has encouraged rehabilitation in our prison system. It has allowed for a measure of discretion to review the parole eligibility of people who have been sentenced to a life in prison. It has also encouraged a strong measure of citizen involvement in making the decisions on that very important process.

The legislation takes us absolutely down the wrong road, with no evidence that could support it. I do not think we have any evidence that this will make Canadians safer and that this will improve any of the outcomes we hope for from our criminal justice system or from our corrections system.

The current Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, dealing with judicial review, enables offenders serving life in prison, with parole ineligibility periods of more than 15 years, to apply for a reduction of that period. The review is not intended as a forum for retrial of the original offence. The focus is instead on the progress of the offender after having served at least 15 years of his or her sentence. That is the description from the Department of Justice of the intent of the legislation.

It is important to review the process that is involved when the faint hope clause is engaged by someone serving a life sentence in prison. The process people have to go through is a very rigorous one that involves several stages.

The first stage is an application to the chief justice of the province in which the person was convicted. The chief justice, or a designated Superior Court judge, reviews the written materials from the crown and the applicant. Then that judge determines, on the basis of the written materials, whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed. If the judge decides that, the next step is a jury is empaneled to hear the case. If the judge decides there is no reason to proceed further, the appeal process stops at that point and there is no further follow-up.

The jury, when it is constituted and empaneled, then considers a number of issues when it looks at the application from the person who is imprisoned. It considers, when it is determining whether there should be a reduction of parole ineligibility, the character of the applicant, his or her conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, information provided by the victim's family members about how the crime has affected them, and any other matters the judge has considered relevant in the circumstances.

A panel of 12 citizens considers those factors and makes the decision about the reduction of the period of ineligibility. The decision of that jury, to reduce the ineligibility period, must be unanimous. We are not talking about a simple majority or anything like that. The jury can reduce the parole ineligibility period immediately or at a later date, or deny any reduction.

When the jury unanimously decides that the number of years to be served should be reduced, it then decides by a two-thirds majority the number of years that must be served before the inmate can apply to the National Parole Board. If the jury decides the period of parole ineligibility is not to be reduced, it can set another time at which the prisoner can again apply for judicial review. If no date is set, then the prisoner can reapply after two years for this process to be engaged again.

It is a very complex process. The process initially involves a judge and then a jury of 12 citizens, two of the important features of our system. There is judicial discretion involved and there is a strong citizen involvement component. The community is absolutely represented in the decision that someone's parole should be reduced. However, that is not the end of the story, because then the parole board has to do its work. The decision about whether the person gets out on parole is made by the parole board in its usual fashion.

I think it is an outstanding process, frankly. The reality is that such offenders are on parole for life. Even if they are ultimately granted parole through this process, they remain on parole for life.

It might be important at some stage to review the functioning of this faint hope clause and the process of judicial review. I think that is far different from the context of a bill that starts from a point that says this process should not continue, that it should be eliminated and repealed. I cannot support that kind of approach.

It is important to look at the statistics in how this process has unfolded. We have statistics from 1987 to 2009. In that period, 991 prisoners were in the category of having committed murder or high treason and were sentenced to life in prison. That is the group of people who are eligible to apply for consideration in this process.

One hundred and seventy-four decisions were made by the court to engage this process. It is a very small number. It is certainly not a majority. In fact, the vast majority of prisoners do not even apply to engage this process, because they realize there is no reason for it to succeed.

In the 174 cases where the judge decided that the process could continue, only 144 of them were ultimately granted reductions. Even then the jury further reduced the number of people who could be considered. Furthermore, the National Parole Board only granted parole in 131 of those cases. One can see that at every stage of this process it is fully engaged and decisions are carefully made.

Of the 131 folks who did get early parole as a result of this process, 83 are on full parole and 18 are on day parole, meaning that they return to an institution at some point during the day. Three were deported. One was temporarily detained. Twenty-six are currently incarcerated. Twelve are deceased. One is on bail.

It is very important to look at those 26 who are still incarcerated and to point out that only four of those incarcerations, as far as I can determine, are the result of reoffences and further criminal activity. None of them is the result of murder. It is very important to realize that none of these people have reoffended in the same way that they did when they were originally convicted. That shows the great success of this program.

Of the four who reoffended, three were related to drug crimes. One was a very serious drug crime. One of the four who reoffended was related to armed robbery, which again is a very serious issue.

This shows the success of this program. It shows that compassion has a place in this process. It shows that we have to honour the rehabilitation process and say that when it is working, there should be positive consequences for that. People who demonstrate they can change their lives while incarcerated in Canada should have this option.

We also want to make sure that this process is fair to the victims of those crimes. As someone who had a close friend who was murdered, I want to make sure that victims are treated fairly and supported through this kind of process. However, I do not believe that means eliminating the possibility of engaging this process. It has served us very well. It has benefited the community, because people who are in prison are a burden to society. If someone can be a contributing and successful member of society, that is an important factor to consider. It is something we should be engaging every time that is possible.

This process has the necessary checks and balances to make it a very successful program. This is very ill-advised legislation and I will make arguments very strenuously against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, England, Belgium and other countries in Europe have similar faint hope clauses and legislation. I wonder if the member could tell us whether there is any success or good stories emanating from the other countries that have similar types of legislation.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to go farther than our own back yard to find the success of this program.

As I was saying, the program has checks and balances. There is involvement by the judiciary, citizen jurors and the National Parole Board. It ensures people who are released on parole stay on parole and have the supervision, control and support for the rest of their lives. The program has been successful. The fact that none of the folks who have been released on parole under this program have committed the same offence for which they were originally incarcerated shows the incredible success of this program. Incredible checks and balances have been built into it.

Any system of incarceration and punishment has to have a compassionate side. It has to have a side where people who demonstrate that they can rehabilitate themselves have access to other options. The whole system should not be based solely on punishment.

Our experience in Canada demonstrates that clearly. We should be a model for the world. I know other countries have adopted the same kind of model and it is functioning successfully for them as well.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased to speak to this very important bill that will fulfill our platform commitment to repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause that allows a criminal serving a life sentence to apply for early parole.

I would first like to commend the hon. Minister of Justice for bringing forward this legislation. This issue is an important one to me. In the last Parliament I was pleased to table a private member's bill, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines, that dealt with this very issue.

The Criminal Code currently provides that the offences of first and second degree murder have mandatory terms of life imprisonment. These offences also have mandatory periods of parole ineligibility.

For first degree murder, an offender must spend a minimum of 25 years in prison before being eligible to apply for parole. For second degree murder, an offender must spend a minimum of 10 years in prison before being eligible to apply for parole. This minimum 10 year period can be increased by a sentencing court up to a maximum of 25 years, depending on a variety of factors, including the circumstances of the crime.

While this may seem like a very long time, the reality is that the faint hope regime provides a mechanism for offenders to seek to have this parole ineligibility period reduced. The current faint hope process is threefold.

First, an offender must convince a judge that he or she has a reasonable prospect of success, that the application will succeed. The courts have already told us that this judicial screening test is low and is not much of a hurdle. Second, if the judge is convinced, the applicant can bring the application for early parole to a jury. The offender must then persuade the jury of 12 ordinary Canadians to unanimously decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment that the applicant must serve without eligibility for parole. If the applicant is successful with the jury, at the third stage of this process, he or she may proceed directly to the National Parole Board to apply for parole.

Most successful faint hope applicants end up being paroled. There are several important time limits for unsuccessful faint hope applicants that are important to know for the purposes of understanding the reforms proposed in Bill C-36.

If unsuccessful during the first two steps in the faint hope application process, the judge or the jury can allow the applicant to reapply to a judge at a later date. The judge or jury may even decide that a particular applicant may never apply again. However, if the judge or the jury rejects the application but does not bar further applications or set a new date at which the offender may reapply, a minimum statutory time period kicks in and the applicant can automatically reapply in two years.

As I mentioned, the majority of those who are successful on a faint hope application are ultimately granted parole by the National Parole Board. What this means is that murderers who are supposed to be serving up to 25 years in jail before applying to the National Parole Board are getting out of prison earlier than they would be if they had to serve the entire parole ineligibility period that they were given at sentencing.

The rationale for the bill before the House is very simple. Allowing murderers a chance, even a faint one, to get early parole is not truth in sentencing. Truth in sentencing means that those who commit the most serious of crimes do the most serious time. That is what Bill C-36 aims to do, to restore truth in sentencing for murderers and to keep dangerous criminals in prison for longer periods of time.

I now propose to delve a little more deeply into the important reforms we are proposing in the bill. The proposal is, in its simplest form, twofold: repeal the faint hope clause for all future murderers and toughen the regime for murderers currently in prison.

With respect to the repeal, the bill would eliminate the faint hope regime for all those who commit murder or high treason after the coming into force of the act. As a result, these offenders would have to serve their entire mandatory parole period that was given at sentencing.

For example, if individuals commit murder after the bill comes into force and are convicted of first degree murder, they would have to serve the full 25-year parole ineligibility period before being eligible to apply for parole. Under the current regime, these murderers, those who have intentionally or unlawfully taken a life, would be able to apply at the 15 year mark of their sentence to have the 25-year parole ineligibility period reduced from 25 to 22, 20 or even 15 years.

Under the new regime proposed in Bill C-36 these murderers would have no chance at any point before the expiry of their 25-year parole ineligibility period to apply for parole. The faint hope regime would be gone, as we committed to do. No more would these murderers get the chance to apply to get out of jail early.

To be compliant with the charter, the repeal would not apply to those currently serving a sentence. Those currently in the system would still be able to apply under the faint hope regime. However, the reforms include a well-tailored scheme that would considerably toughen the regime for them.

This new regime would establish a higher screening test at the first stage where the judge examines the application. As I mentioned, the courts have indicated that the current test, a reasonable prospect of success, is not that high a hurdle.

We will make this test tougher. Applicants for faint hope would have to prove that they have a substantial prospect that their application will proceed. This would prevent less worthy applications from going forward.

We are also proposing a longer minimum period of time before unsuccessful applicants can reapply to a judge. Right now, the minimum period an offender has to wait to reapply to a judge is two years. Under our proposal, the individual would have to wait a minimum of five years.

For example, if a murderer who has served 15 years applies and is rejected by the judge, that offender would have to wait at least five years or until the 20 year mark of his or her sentence before reapplying.

The reforms also propose a new five year delay period during which offenders cannot apply if they fail to submit an application within a new three month window for faint hope applications.

The three month time limit would apply in the following situations.

First, it would apply to all 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, 16, 17 and more years but who have not yet applied. These offenders would have to make an application within three months of this legislation coming into force or they will have to wait five years.

Second, it would apply to those offenders who are serving a sentence and have not reached the 15 year mark. These individuals could have served four years or eight years or 10 years when the bill passes. At the 15 year point exactly, all of these murderers will have to bring an application within three months or wait another five years to do so.

It is important to note that these proposals would also ensure that offenders do not keep victims' families anticipating whether an application will be forthcoming.

As I noted briefly, if under both examples an offender does not apply, the proposals in Bill C-36 would impose a five year period following a three month limit during which an offender could not apply again.

For example, offenders who have served 15 years at the coming into force date, but do not apply within the three month limitation upon reaching this date, will have to automatically wait until the 20th year of their sentence before bringing a first application.

Third, the three month limitation will apply at the expiry of the longer statutory minimum period of time of five years, for any offender who reapplies to a judge. If offenders apply at year 15 and a judge determines their application will not go forward to a jury, the individuals cannot apply again until the 20 year mark of their sentence.

At that point, the 20 year mark, the three month time limit starts to run. Once it expires and the offenders did not bring an application, they could not reapply for another five years.

Essentially, these reforms provide a higher hurdle at the outset for offenders by ensuring that they must bring an application or reapply within the new limitation period, three months, or wait the statutory mandated five years.

In short, these proposed reforms include this well-tailored scheme to respond to concerns raised by the public and by victims that the faint hope regime as presently constituted allows for far too lenient treatment of murderers.

The reforms set out in Bill C-36 would allow us to meet the concerns of Canadians, that murderers do the time they have been given and stay longer in prison than they do now.

These proposed reforms would also ensure that the families and loved ones of murder victims are not forced to rehear the details of horrendous crimes again and again as they are sometimes required to do under the present regime.

I support the bill and I call on other members of the House to do so as well.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook who did an admiral job this morning describing and outlining Bill C-36. I also wish to thank him for his efforts in moving the private member's bill in the last Parliament that would have rid the country of the faint hope clause and the inspiration of that private member's bill leading to a government piece of legislation. It is not often that happens. It is obvious that the government and the justice minister see the importance of moving this piece of legislation forward.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-36, Criminal Code amendments that will put an end to the so-called faint hope provision. It is not often that we repeal or eliminate a provision of the Criminal Code, so some explanation of the faint hope provision is needed before we discuss the bill before us.

What is the faint hope provision? The faint hope provision applies to those who commit murder, the most serious offence in our law. The faint hope provision is in fact a section of the Criminal Code, section 745.6, which was first enacted in 1976 when Parliament replaced death sentences for murder with mandatory life terms of imprisonment and parole ineligibility periods: 25 years for first degree murder and a minimum of 10 years and up to 25 years for second degree murder, and 25 years for high treason.

Remember that a life sentence is indeed for life and for a murderer that is exactly how it should be. Offenders may eventually be released on parole after 25 years but those offenders are serving their life sentence under the conditions of parole.

The faint hope clause permits an offender serving a life sentence to apply for a chance to have parole earlier than prescribed. So after 15 years of a life sentence an application could be made for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.

I should emphasize that this not a parole application but rather a step before a parole application. The 15 years in prison does not reflect the severity of the crime of murder and the chance of parole after 15 years. It simply does not reflect what Canadians expect of a life sentence.

This government promised Canadians that we would get tough on crime, that we would hold offenders to account and we would show compassion and respect for victims and the families of victims.

The government has delivered with important reforms including addressing dangerous offenders, gun crime, organized crime, drug crime, auto theft and identity theft. This government delivers what it promises and Bill C-36 delivers on our promise to get rid of the faint hope clause and ensure that murderers serve sentences in jail until they are ready to be released on parole.

The people of Canada have long questioned why a murderer who receives a life sentence and is required to serve 25 years before seeking parole should be able to get any chance of parole earlier. Many victims have said that it is the victims that receive the true life sentence because their family member is gone forever.

Ironically, while 15 years may seem like an eternity for families mourning the murder of a loved one, 15 years seems far too soon for families to deal with a faint hope application by the offender and the possibility of a parole hearing.

Victims who have attended faint hope hearings have said that this process causes them to relive the whole tragedy of the family member's murder and the trial process that led to the conviction of the offender. No one asks to be a victim and no one should have to be revictimized again and again by our justice system.

Our justice system has changed over the last 20 years and victims now have a greater role. I have witnessed firsthand what victims' families have to go through in the St. Catharines community, what it means to have to face the possibility of a murderer getting out earlier than the sentence that he or she was given.

Some may suggest that victims of crime should simply rely on the crown and the judge, and avoid the additional trauma, but every family member of a murder victim will agree and will tell us that they are there for the memory of the victim, and to ensure that the judge is aware of the impact that the murderer has had on their lives. They want to ensure that the safety of the community and their safety is considered.

Bill C-36 addresses these concerns, but what exactly does the bill do? This reform will bar everyone who commits murder or high treason in the future from applying for faint hope. Those who commit murder after this law comes into force will no longer be eligible to apply for an earlier parole eligibility date after serving 15 years of their sentence.

The reforms in Bill C-36 respect the fundamental legal principle that the law cannot change retroactively to, in effect, change the sentence of a person who is already serving or awaiting that sentence. The bill will not bar an offender completely from access to faint hope in the same way as is proposed for future offenders. But even though some “lifers” will still be entitled to apply for faint hope, there will be new rules and new procedures in place.

These new procedures will apply to offenders who are already serving a life sentence, to those who are awaiting a life sentence, and to those who have been charged, but not yet convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason.

There is currently a three-step process involved for offenders applying for faint hope. The new procedures in Bill C-36 will make some changes to these three steps. First, an applicant must pass a screening test conducted by a superior court judge who will decide whether the applicant can go on to the next stage of the process.

Some courts have suggested that this test is relatively easy to meet. Bill C-36 makes this a higher test for offenders from “a reasonable prospect” to a “substantial likelihood” of success. This will screen out most of the most undeserving applicants.

If unsuccessful at the first stage, the applicant can apply again in two years unless the judge makes the period longer. Bill C-36 will increase this to five years. This will mean an offender with a 25-year parole ineligibility period, for example, can only make two faint hope applications at the 15 and at the 20 year mark.

The change from two to five years will create more certainty for victims' families about when a faint hope hearing will occur and reduce the trauma that these hearings often inflict on them. Victims' families will know that if they must face a subsequent faint hope hearing, it will be at least be five years down the road. It still is not easy, but it means it simply will not happen every two years.

Second, at present, an applicant who successfully gets past the first stage must convince a 12 member jury that he or she should be able to apply for early parole. If the jury unanimously agrees that the offender should be able to apply early, it also decides when that application may be made. If the jury says no, the offender can reapply to a judge at two years unless the jury makes that period longer. Bill C-36 will change this to a five year period.

Under the current system an offender can apply for faint hope at any point after reaching 15 years in his or her life sentence. Bill C-36 will set a three month window on faint hope applications. This means that once an offender is eligible to apply for the faint hope, the application must be made within three months of the date of becoming eligible. If this three month window is missed for whatever reason, the offender will have to wait a full five years to apply again. This offers victims some certainty about when the faint hope application may arise rather than wondering when they will be faced with an application that the offender could bring at any time after the 15 year mark.

Third, in the event that the offender is successful and they are given a chance to apply for parole earlier than prescribed in their sentence, they must then apply to the National Parole Board which will determine whether parole should be granted and on what conditions.

Bill C-36 is not making any changes to the law that governs parole, only to the faint hope or the step before parole.

In summary, these procedural changes will apply to everyone who commits murder, or who is arrested for murder, or who is convicted for murder before the date the amendments come into force. All those who commit, or are arrested for, or who are convicted for murder on or after the coming into force of the bill will not be able to apply for faint hope at all.

Bill C-36 closes what has been described as a “loophole for lifers” in a way that balances respect for the law with respect for the rights of victims and their families.

This government stands up for victims of crime and stands up for law-abiding people of Canada. Bill C-36 is an important step in our strategy to hold offenders accountable and to ensure truth in sentencing. Serious crime deserves serious time and Bill C-36 reflects that goal.

I urge hon. members to give the bill their full support.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 is a bill that the Bloc Québécois wants to see referred to committee, but I can offer no guarantees in this House that we will support the bill at third reading. We need more information. We want to understand the real impact of the bill, but obviously we think it is a bill that needs to be seriously considered in Committee.

In 1976, the death penalty was abolished and murder was reclassified, if you will, into two categories: first degree murder and second degree murder. In both cases, the punishment is imprisonment for life. The difference is in respect of parole eligibility. For first degree murder, the murderer must serve at least 25 years of their sentence before being eligible for parole. In the case of second degree murder, they must serve at least 10 years of their sentence, other than in certain exceptional cases, for example where the case involves an intentional murder under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, where it was a question of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the murder, or where the murder was a criminal organization offence.

The faint hope clause, as it is called, is found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, which provides for possible eligibility for parole. That section was added to the Criminal Code when the death penalty was abolished and murder was reclassified as first degree or second degree murder. We must remember the reason why section 745.6 was added to the Criminal Code. There were essentially three reasons. There was a desire to offer hope to offenders who demonstrated some capacity for rehabilitation; there was a desire to provide motivation for good conduct in prison; and there was also a desire to recognize that it was not in the public interest to keep someone incarcerated, in certain circumstances, beyond 15 years. Obviously, I would remind all members of this House and all those at home watching that the faint hope clause is an exceptional provision that comes into play before eligibility for parole.

The faint hope clause procedure, as my good colleague from Abitibi knows, has relatively clear rules. In order for that provision, which is found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, to apply, there is of course a three-step process. The first step is screening by a judge. If my information is correct, that is in fact the chief justice of the superior court. The judge examines the application and must determine the potential, the real prospect that a jury will agree to allow the applicant to be granted early parole. So first, the chief justice of the superior court where the murder was committed must hear the application. Second, the judge must agree to empanel a jury of 12 members, and that jury must agree, by a two-thirds vote, that parole, what I would call early parole, will be granted. And third, of course, the application is submitted to the National Parole Board, which has full authority to accept or deny the application. There is a clear set of rules for the process: it is examined by the chief justice of the superior court, a 12-member jury is empanelled and the application must be accepted by two thirds, and it is assessed by the National Parole Board.

I might go into a little more detail regarding the process to be followed when one wishes to invoke section 745.6. I would say that, yes, persons who commit first degree or second degree murder must be given exemplary sentences. However, up to a certain point, should we not ask ourselves as parliamentarians whether there are not circumstances where it would be desirable for an individual, after 15 years of detention without parole, to be able to exercise this provision, since justice is never automatic, and never one-size-fits-all? With its three steps, does the process not offer sufficient guarantees to stand as a safeguard? People will study the merit of this application. There is no risk of frivolous applications that will be accepted even though an individual does not deserve access to early parole.

I am going to describe the three steps in some detail.

First, the applicant must convince the chief justice or a designated judge in the province of the conviction. The applicant, who is normally behind bars, must convince the chief justice that there is a real possibility of the application being successful. For example, multiple repeat offenders, that is, people who have committed several murders, have no chance of their application succeeding. The application is not even admissible, and the chief justice could not permit the process to be started.

If the chief justice or the designated judge finds, to his best understanding of the case, that two-thirds of the jury is not likely to allow the applicant access to some kind of early parole, under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, the applicant fails. The judge must then set a waiting period, which is generally two years, before a new application may be made. The judge may even set a longer period. For example, I am an applicant. I am presently on parole. I show real signs of rehabilitation. I have served the 10 or 15 years of detention without parole. I appear before the chief justice of the superior court. He may tell me to come back in two years or some other time period which he finds to be reasonable.

Second, the applicant must convince a jury of 12 citizens who have to decide on this. Let me go back, I have made one little error, reminding me of my fallible human nature. It was like that before, but the process was revised in 1999, and the jury now has to decide unanimously, not in a proportion of two-thirds. I would have expected the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue to whisper that to me. I do not hold it against him, but I urge him to remain vigilant. So it is not two-thirds of the jury, but the entire jury that must accept the application for early parole.

If the jury refuses, we know how it works. A jury is constituted from certain lists. Of course, in a trial, the way that the public is involved in the administration of justice is through the constitution and presence of a jury. If the jury refuses, but does not prohibit the filing of new applications, another application may be made, once again, after two years or after a longer period, as the jury may decide. If the jury accepts, on the other hand, it has to set a new period, which will be reduced.

Third, the jury will obviously consider the application, deliberate and approve or reject it. If the application is approved it will be sent to the National Parole Board.

I looked for statistics that would give us an idea of the scope of this phenomenon and have some. As of April 9, 2009, relatively recently, 265 applications had been submitted under section 745.6. Of that number, 140 had been approved and so 140 individuals had been given a period of time prior to their eligibility for parole.

With a ratio of 140 to 265, are we not approaching 45% or 50%? Can I say that?

The National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants. I will now provide some slightly more specific statistics. Thirteen individuals subsequently returned to prison—we can speculate on the fact that they were returned for breaking parole and failed to meet the conditions of it—three were deported, 11 died and were recalled to heaven—fate, it could be called—one was on bail, one was in provisional detention, and the most important of the statistics, 98 individuals of 127—we are closer here to two thirds—met the conditions of their parole.

In our assessment of the situation, we have to say that, when the stages set out in section 745.6 have been followed, two thirds of the individuals who were eligible early for parole met the conditions of it.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is wise and as a solicitor misses nothing. I do not know whether it is because he is used to this with wills, but he reminded me that adding the 11 dead to the 98 individuals who met the conditions of their parole makes the proportion higher than two thirds.

I would like to return to the 98 individuals, because it is here the Bloc's question lies. Why is there a need to repeal a provision of an exceptional nature? We are talking about 127 individuals in all these years. Is it not reassuring in the administration of justice to know that the provision exists?

People can commit second degree murder when they lose their mind, but it is still a reprehensible act and there are still innocent victims. It is certainly not my intention to minimize the seriousness of second degree murder. However, are there not situations in which individuals sentenced for second degree murder with no previous record show they are truly rehabilitated?

I will give you an unfortunate but convincingly instructive example.

Madam Speaker, allow me to give an example. You learn that the person you love, who has been sharing your life for a number of years is, unfortunately, cheating on you with the neighbour, and the community knows it. You are in a rage and commit murder out of jealousy. You are a respected individual and have responsibilities in your community.

You are liked by her peers. You have always led a good life. You have had significant responsibilities in the community.

Then, in a moment of craziness, you kill your her husband when you find out he has been cheating on you. You are therefore convicted of second degree murder. This is an act, of course, that we as a society must punish severely. You find yourself behind bars. In this specific example, though, would you not be the kind of person who should be eligible for early parole?

If this Conservative bill ever passes and the faint hope clause does not exist, would we have made a mistake? We would have deprived ourselves of a provision in the administration of justice that can be beneficial in some circumstances.

I want to provide a few statistics on the people who could be eligible. At the present time, 4,000 prisoners are serving life sentences in Canada. According to the most recent statistics of April 9, 2009, 1,001 prisoners could be eligible for early parole. Four hundred and fifty-nine of them have already served at least 15 years of their sentence and could therefore apply. When the bill gets royal assent, at least 459 people will be eligible to apply under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Five hundred and forty-two offenders will not have served 15 years yet but will soon be able to apply. On average, 43 of the 1,001 prisoners will be able to apply every year.

If things continue and section 745.6 is maintained, nearly 50 people a year will be eligible. This does not mean, of course, that the juries or the National Parole Board will grant their request, but they will be eligible.

Bill C-36 would entirely eliminate—and before the day on which the change comes into force—the right of all offenders to apply for early parole who were convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason. In addition, the last clause in the bill tells us this day will be determined by an order in council.

Parliamentarians must realize that if Bill C-36 passes, section 745.6 of the Criminal Code will be revoked. I just gave the example of a crime of passion. In committee, we are going to try to find out who has benefited from this section in order to know whether it should exist. We have no fixed opinion yet. We are prepared to listen to all sides. Just as much, though, as we want to send this bill to committee, we are concerned about the possibility that we might be depriving ourselves of a tool that is well suited to certain cases.

The bill would also tighten the conditions under which all offenders convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason before the day on which the change comes into force may make an application, including those who are already serving their sentence. This means that there would be four changes to the current procedure. First of all, tougher selection criteria will apply for judicial review

Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up but I started my remarks at 11:55. Since I was given 20 minutes to speak, I could continue until 12:20. Am I mistaken here?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

According to the clerk, you have had 20 minutes for your presentation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I may, and without questioning your ruling, I really took the floor at 11:55 a.m. Therefore, I feel like the House is depriving me of five minutes. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I clearly recall taking the floor at 11:55 a.m.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry, but I am not in a position to assess the veracity of your remarks. I am convinced that, based on your observations, you are right, but I arrived mid-way through and the clock shows that 20 minutes have run by.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, in order to clear any ambiguity, in all friendship, and again without questioning the chair's ruling, could you ask for the consent of the House to give me five additional minutes for my presentation, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic on justice, and since I am the second speaker? I would really appreciate that.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

According to the clock here at the table, the hon. member began his remarks at 11:53 a.m. I wish to remind him that there is also a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments.

If the hon. member insists, I can ask for the unanimous consent, but I still want to remind him that he has 10 minutes left for questions and comments.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

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

Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to commend and thank the member for Hochelaga for his comments and for his passion on this issue. He is so passionate and wanted to speak some more, so I am going to give him the opportunity to answer a question.

He talked about the procedure and the effect on certain convicted individuals. He cited a hypothetical example of a spurned lover. He talked about the processes. However, at no time during his 20-minute dissertation did he talk about the victims,

I specifically want to ask him what effect he thinks Bill C-36 would have on the victims of crime, specifically the families of a deceased individual, by sparing them the emotional trauma of having to attend and sometimes testify at court proceedings under the faint-hope clause or hearings before the National Parole Board.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I can assure him that all Bloc Québécois members share a real compassion and a real concern for victims. Over the years, I have personally met with victims of criminal acts. I am well aware of what this may mean for a family, for a spouse, and for children who become orphans. There is no doubt that we feel such compassion.

Of course, when we have to review a bill like this one, the question we must ask ourselves as parliamentarians is what will happen if we abolish a system that already functions by exception. I gave some numbers earlier. Every year, about 40 individuals may be eligible under this program. Is there not a danger in depriving ourselves of this tool? I certainly do not want to give the impression that, by questioning this initiative as a parliamentary group, we are showing a lack of sensitiveness towards victims.

I said that we wish to refer the legislation to a committee. I want to know who benefits from early parole. I am wondering—and I believe that is also the case for my colleagues—what would happen if this provision were to disappear. However, we definitely do not want to show a lack of sensitivity towards victims.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member whether he has any information about how this type of legislation works in England, Belgium and other countries that have similar types of provisions in their laws.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have that kind of information. We met with departmental officials this week and they explained a little about the structure of the bill.

They provided us with statistics, but I was not able to do a comparative analysis of other countries. Once this goes to committee, it will no doubt be interesting to see some comparisons and learn how other countries, whose legal traditions are similar to those of Canada, have dealt with early parole.

As always, my colleague's suggestion is a good one. And it is always a pleasure to debate with him. He is very present in the debates here in this House and I always appreciate his questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Hochelaga on his work in committee on this issue, which is not an easy one.

It is not an easy issue, especially when it involves this kind of bill, and I would like to take the next few minutes to explain how I see things.

Since the Bloc Québécois has no objection to referring Bill C-36 to committee for examination, what sort of questions does my colleague think the committee should ask when studying Bill C-36, particularly before it goes any further?

As the previous hon. member said, the member for Hochelaga, who has not yet been called to the bar—unfortunately for us—will probably have some interesting things to say in committee.

What is his position? What does he plan to say? What questions would he like to see the committee members ask during their study of the bill?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I can even boast that he is not just a colleague, but a friend as well.

Obviously, we all know that he is a learned jurist. He wrote his bar exams in the 1970s—AD, that is. There is no chance I will ever write my bar exams, but I take a certain pride in having completed my law degree.

The sort of questions I would like the committee to debate concern the profile of people who were eligible for early parole. What is the rationale for abolishing section 745.6? I know that some police forces have called for it to be abolished.

In my introduction, which was cut short prematurely, I gave three reasons why we had passed section 745.6 in 1977. We wanted to give hope to people in the prison population and to make certain inmates with the appropriate profile eligible for early parole.

Are the reasons section 745.6 was added to the Criminal Code in 1977 and reviewed in the 1990s no longer relevant?

These are questions I would like the committee to debate, obviously with the friendly cooperation of my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at statistics about how this policy is applied in terms of early parole eligibility and for what crimes. The statistics go back a couple of decades. One thing that is important to look at is the regions.

I just want the member's take on how we should look at this policy when it comes to different regions, and if we should be looking at the causality, and if there are any determinants based on where people are coming from in society. When we allow people to leave the prison system under supervision, it is important that there are supports there.

Does the member think this policy that the government is proposing will actually help support people when they come out of prison? It is fine to say, “Do the time”, and so on, but what about what happens when people leave prison? What supports are there? Does he think there are problems and inequities when looking at the different regions of Canada?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not have access to regional statistics. The statistics I shared with the House are the ones we received from the justice department about people who had been granted early parole.

When I was a law student and was taking a course on sentencing—my professor was André Jodoin, who was assisted by Marie-Ève Sylvestre, here at the University of Ottawa—there was still a very good correlation between crime and indicators of disadvantaged areas. I also remember that there was unfortunately a strong correlation between the first nations and crime. That is why, with the Supreme Court decision in Her Majesty v. Proulx and subsequently with the Liberal government, specific mention of recognizing aboriginal justice in sentencing was even added. That said, my colleague is quite right to ask how these people will be reintegrated into society once their parole ends.

As parliamentarians, we need to strike a balance between the need to set an example in punishing people who commit murder and the need to give those people hope for rehabilitation. As Saint Augustine said, virtue is in the middle.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-36.

At the outset, I am very eager to see this legislation passed on to committee, where we will deal with it. We look forward to hearing from the presenters regarding elements of the bill. I believe our caucus will have some very positive amendments to benefit victims and support the rights of victims and to improve the situation overall.

Back in 1976, Parliament abolished capital punishment and replaced it with mandatory life sentences for high treason and first and second degree murder. At the same time, ineligibility periods for parole were established. For high treason and first degree murder, parole ineligibility periods were set at 25 years.

In addition, the Liberal government introduced the 15-year judicial review, known as the faint hope clause. Warren Allmand, who was the solicitor general of Canada at the time, and those of us who followed the issues at the time remember him, introduced the new provision with the following comment, “to keep them in for 25 years in my view is a waste of resources, a waste of a person's life”.

I would like to advise the House, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Section 745.6(1) allows for people who are convicted of murder or high treason and who have served 15 years of their sentences to have their parole ineligibility period reviewed and possibly shortened. The process is heavily weighted in favour of the offender, from a victim's point of view. The emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than the crime itself. The impact of the crime is extremely traumatic when it comes to the family of the victim.

We want to demonstrate that Criminal Code Section 745.6(1), the application for judicial review, is not an automatic process. This process is very involved. A lot of steps have to be taken for anybody applying for the faint hope option.

Section 745.6(1) states:

Subject to subsection (2), a person may apply, in writing, to the appropriate Chief Justice in the province in which their conviction took place for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole if the person (a) has been convicted of murder or high treason; (b) has been sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until more than fifteen years of their sentence has been served; and (c) has served at least fifteen years of their sentence.

The exception brought in by the previous Liberal government a few years ago excluded people who were multiple murderers. I think we can pretty much all agree that this was a good idea.

Subsection (2) states:

A person who has been convicted of more than one murder may not make an application under subsection (1), whether or not proceedings were commenced in respect of any of the murders before another murder was committed.

An application for a section 745 hearing is heard in the court. Section 745.6 requires that the chief justice of the province where the offence took place screen an application for judicial review. If the chief justice decides that the application may proceed, there will be a hearing. At the hearing, evidence is first presented by the applicant. Witnesses for the applicant usually include an applicant's family and friends, psychologists or psychiatrists, guards employed at the facility where the applicant is in prison and teachers if the applicant has taken any type of courses.

Representatives of the National Parole Board will also have been called to testify that even if the application is successful, the board does not always grant parole to these applications. The crown prosecutor may then present evidence regarding such things as the applicant's conduct and behaviour while incarcerated.

In terms of the role of the jury, because that is the next process, before the application is heard in court, section 745.6 requires that the chief justice screen an application for judicial review. If the chief justice decides that the application may proceed, the jury will hear the case. The jury must come to a decision after considering the following: the character of the offender after having served 15 years; the conduct and behaviour of the offender while in prison; the nature of the offence, based on the agreed upon facts in the case; the information provided by the victim; and specific matter the judge deems relevant to the application.

After hearing the application, the jury can make the following possible decisions: first, the offender can immediate apply for parole; or second, reduce the parole eligibility period by a specified amount of time; or third, the offender must serve the entire 25 years before parole eligibility. Even if the jury reduces the parole ineligibility period, the National Parole Board must still establish at a parole hearing whether an offender should receive parole. That is the third step in the process.

Not all applications to the board lead to an offender's release. In making its decision, the board must consider whether an offender's release will present an undue risk to society. In fact, the jury is asked a series of questions. One of the questions is, “Do you unanimously agree that the applicant's number of years in prison without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence and the nature of the murder for which he was convicted and the victim's impact statement”. It takes only one person out of the jury to say no and that is it.

This is an improvement over the previous legislation where, I believe, two-thirds of the jury had to agree. Now 100% of the jury has to agree. That improvement was made by amendments back in 1997.

In terms of the victim participation in section 745 hearings, we know, even in property crimes, a number of years ago, the victims were not given very good treatment. I can recall situations where people had break-ins to their homes, which is a very traumatic process for anybody who has ever gone through that, and they would get no help in from the police force and not a lot of sympathy in the process.

Particularly in my province of Manitoba over the course of the last 10 years of NDP government, and the Conservative government before that, the rights of victims were improved. The victim had a right to know the disposition of the case and was given updates and counselling, which is very important. I know of a situation where a person was involved in a robbery, whether the gun was real or not, the person to this day has had psychological problems in dealing with the situation. Nowadays there are provisions for people to have counselling when these events happen. This is a very positive for the victims.

Before 1997, it was left to the judge's discretion whether the jury would be able to consider information provided by the victims during the judicial review process. Section 745.6 now allows for the families of victims to provide information concerning the impact the crime had on them during the application hearing. Under section 745.6(3), the family of the victim may provide information, either orally or in writing, at the discretion of the victim or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate.

Of course, while that is an important part of the process, people are also being victimized again when they have to appear at hearings when the applications for the faint hope clause are made—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Elmwood—Transcona quite intently. He talked about the NDP caucus amending the bill at committee with a view to improving victims' rights. As he knows, I am a member of the justice committee and I am very dedicated to promoting, preserving and improving victims' rights.

I am curious if he might be able to give me a preview as to what type of amendments I can expect in committee that would improve the lot of victims in faint hope clause hearings.

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

Madam Speaker, the member will have to stay tuned as the amendments are developed. Certainly, the intention is there. We in the NDP caucus recognize that it is onerous for victims to have to relive the circumstances of the crime each time there is a hearing under the faint hope clause.

First of all, we would like to hear from the presenters on the different parts of the issue and then perhaps look at some sort of provisions that could be put in the bill to help the victims. We certainly have a very open mind on this bill and we will do everything possible to make sure that victims' rights are protected and that victims' interests are looked after.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Elmwood—Transcona might comment on whether or not he has seen any evidence that public safety has been endangered by the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code of Canada. Has he seen any evidence that folks who do become eligible for early parole have reoffended and committed murder again, or does he believe, like me, that this is an indication of the success of our rehabilitation process in prison?

The folks who are successful in this process are the people who have done best and are most successful in terms of the goals of rehabilitation. They are no longer a burden on society by being incarcerated, but are integrated back into society and become contributing members of the community again. Does he agree with that statement?

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

Madam Speaker, since reviews began back in 1987, as of April 13, 2009, there have been 991 court reviews. Of those cases, parole was only granted in 131 cases. It would appear that the tests we currently have are, to some degree, reasonably tough enough, and at the end of the day, not that many people are successful in the faint hope clause applications.

As of April 13, 2009, of those 991 cases, 83 people are out on full parole. Eighteen people are on day parole. That would imply that the people go back into an institution for the evening. Three people have been deported. One person has been temporarily detained. Twelve people are deceased. One person is on bail.

The arguments can be made that the system has worked reasonably well over time, but I still think there is room for improvement and amendment. That is why I favour passing this bill and sending it to committee. Let us hear from the presenters.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying there is no doubt that the most compelling argument for Bill C-36 is indeed the victims. Under the current faint hope clause, the victims have to relive the nightmare of the crime that was perpetrated against their family, against their loved ones. There is no doubt that the government has a compelling argument. It is for that reason, I think primarily, that in this corner of the House we will be voting in favour of Bill C-36 in order to get it to committee.

As the House well knows, the parliamentary process is set up with a system of checks and balances. This is something that is extremely important in this particular case for this particular bill. We have second reading, which is debate in principle on the bill, the principle of whether or not the faint hope clause should essentially be eliminated. From there the bill goes to committee, and that is the point where we will certainly be pressing to hear from every organization. Whether we are talking about victims organizations, victims services, those who represent parolees, police officers, parole officers, everyone in the system needs to be heard at the committee level so that we can ensure that the legislation does what the government purports that it does. At the same time we are ensuring our place in the House as the effective opposition and that amendments are made to the legislation to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or collateral fallout and that indeed we feel that this is in the best interest of the country and of Canadians.

I certainly hope the committee process will be extremely serious, in depth and effective in ensuring that the committee has heard from everyone in a consultative process that allows Canadians from coast to coast to participate. Often committee deliberations are done in a very perfunctory way. Often proposed witnesses who are submitted by the NDP are rejected out of hand. We hope that will not be the case and that due diligence will be done at the committee level.

Then we will bring the legislation back to the House to consider amendments that other members of the House may want to put forward at report stage. The final stage is third reading where we take a very in depth look at the legislation itself. At that point the question is whether or not to pass the legislation as amended.

At this point, the second reading stage, we are saying in principle that we are certainly willing to look at the bill because of the compelling arguments that are raised with regard to the victims having to relive the nightmare of their loved ones.

The real test I think will be at the committee stage to see to what extent the government is willing to hear voices from across Canada, very learned voices and those who have a key stake in this legislation, either way. From that point then I think we can look to see how the legislation can be improved.

There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation can be improved and must be improved, but that will be something for our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and other members of the justice committee to do when that time comes.

A social democratic approach to the criminal justice system is based on ensuring that the victims are responded to by the system. That is why I put forward Bill C-372, which essentially proposes changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that victims' restitution is part and parcel of the judicial process and no longer an option for judges, but mandatory as part of the process. I put forward that amendment to the Criminal Code because I feel there is a profound argument that can be made that victims are often lost in the system.

It is essential for parliamentarians to hear the voices of victims and to ensure that their voices are heard every time legislation is brought forward. The victims' voices are part of a broader consultation process that has to take place.

We in this corner of the House have been advocating for some time for a comprehensive approach to the criminal justice system. Legislation obviously is one of the pillars. We must as a Parliament regularly take into account whether or not legislation is working, whether or not the Criminal Code is working and what adjustments have to be made.

For the government to limit its approach simply to legislation does a disservice to Canadians. There are other pillars of the justice system that have to be taken into consideration.

Since emerging out of the CCF, the NDP's hallmark in Parliament has been the need for substantial funding for crime prevention. The most effective approach to the criminal justice system is to stop crime from being committed in the first place. By investing in crime prevention services and crime prevention strategies, many other countries around the world have reduced their crime rate, and that means fewer victims.

By ensuring that the voices of victims past are heard ensures fewer victims in the future. We will have fewer victims in the future by investing in an effective way in crime prevention. Tragically, the Conservative government has done exactly the opposite. It has cut back on crime prevention programs and crime prevention strategies. It has done the exact opposite of what it needs to do. Most Canadians would want the government to increase crime prevention funding and crime prevention strategies.

Funding is a major pillar that the government has far from increased. If the Conservatives were really concerned about criminal justice issues, they would put more funding into crime prevention. That would ensure an effective way of reducing crime. The government has done the opposite.

Study after study has shown that for every dollar invested in crime prevention, we save six dollars later on in policing costs, in court costs, in incarceration costs. It just makes good economic and fiscal sense. There is no more effective argument for crime prevention programs than the economic argument.

The NDP has been the foremost advocate for enhanced funding for crime prevention. We will continue to press the government to do the right thing and to invest in crime prevention rather than cutting back.

Another pillar of crime prevention strategy in a criminal justice system is adequate funding for policing. The government committed in past elections to fund an extra 2,500 police officers across the country. That promise simply has not been kept. Police officers in various parts of the country are frustrated by the fact that the government has chosen not to keep its promise.

Having 2,500 more police officers on the streets of our cities would make a difference in the effectiveness of policing. Police departments are overburdened in many parts of the country. Police officers are often being asked to do far too much. If we want our police forces to be effective, we have to provide an effective number of officers, and that has not happened. Again that is an area in which the government fell short.

This is not only about funding for police officers. This is also about respect, or lack of, that has come from the government toward police officers.

Three years ago in the House we adopted a motion for a public safety officer compensation fund. The Conservatives at that time voted in favour of it, and yet they have steadfastly refused to provide a compensation fund for the families of those police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. There again the government has fallen short.

The Conservatives have fallen short on court funding as well. Because of that, there are bottlenecks in the court system.

There are a number of pillars in the criminal justice system. Bill C-36 deals with one of them, but the other three, lamentably, have been neglected by the government.

In this corner of the House the New Democratic Party caucus will vote to move this forward to committee so we can have that strenuous examination of the bill, but we will certainly continue to keep the government's feet to the fire on the other pillars it has neglected.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I will read something said by his colleague, the NDP critic on the committee, because I think it is fundamental. He said something like this: “And what if the lack of hope crushed the desire for rehabilitation of the convicted and increased violence and the problems in prisons?

My question has to do with this observation. We are dealing with the worst crime, namely murder. Bill C-36 concerns the faint hope clause. Does he believe that adopting this bill in its present form will lead to a reduction in violent crimes committed in our society, murder in particular?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. However, we are not going to adopt the bill without any changes and the member knows that. We are discussing whether, in principle, we should refer the bill to committee for an in-depth analysis of the impact of this bill. To that end, the NDP will call the greatest number possible of witnesses representing victims, the police, the incarcerated and all of Canadian society in order to determine the precise impact of this bill. We want it to be sent to committee so that all the work needed to be done for this bill can begin. We will be pushing for the broadest possible consultation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am getting a little concerned as we move through some of these justice bills. It seems that rather than debating the substance of the bill and determining whether there are compelling reasons that approval in principle, passage at second reading, should be supported, it seems to be drifting to sending it to committee and letting others determine whether there is evidence of this, that and the other thing.

Our responsibility is to do the work at the beginning of the process. If the members cannot make reasoned arguments that an important issue such as the faint hope clause should or should not be supported, bills should be referred to committee directly rather than being put in this place.

What assurance does the member have that should the bill pass at second reading that it would be in order to make a motion that would kill the faint hope clause itself? It may be out of order simply because approval in principle has already been given by the House at second reading.

I raise it because it seems that it is just too easy for this place not to do the in-depth research, not to consult, not to push the government for information on the basis of the bill and just send it to committee to get others to do our work.

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

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague from Mississauga South, but it is important to note that this is the first time a Liberal has stood all day. We have been debating the bill day after day and the Liberal Party members have been completely non-existent on this issue. They have not done anything.

I understand they have a coalition with the Conservatives, and I understand they are not going to question the Conservatives or raise anything with regard to anything the Conservatives bring forward, but for Liberals to say to New Democrats, who have been doing all the heavy lifting in this Parliament, that we are not lifting enough is ridiculous. We are carrying the weight for the non-existent Liberal opposition. We are carrying the weight for the government members who refuse to question their own government.

Each one of the NDP MPs is having to do the work of four other members of Parliament, and now the member says we will have to take on more. Of course, we will. The New Democrats never shy away from tough work and hard work, but for Liberals to say we are not working hard enough I think is a little ridiculous, to say the least.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not think my turn was coming up that fast, but I am ready, to echo the words of a famous Quebec political party leader regrettably reelected for another term. That said, I wish to go a bit further than my colleague did a few moments ago in his words to the colleague from Mississauga South. It is important, because the Liberals are the ones who made major changes to the Criminal Code and who came up with what we are discussing today: the faint hope clause. It is extremely important.

It may be a rarity to do so in this House, but I will quote from an article in Le Devoir. In her most interesting article on Bill C-36 on June 10, headed “The strength of intimidation”, Manon Corneiller wrote as follows:

The last Conservative bill has been introduced [...]. Bill C-36 would eliminate a provision in the Criminal Code known as the faint hope clause. Among other things, that clause makes it possible for a person who has been found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with possibility of parole after 25 years to seek permission to apply for parole after 15 years.

This also applies, and I will come back to this, to second degree murder.

The opposition parties—

I presume that includes us. Perhaps not the Liberals, after yesterday's coalition, but it does mean us. So, continuing:

The opposition parties think that the justice committee is better equipped [a response to the question from the colleague from Mississauga South] to examine the bill, and it will go there because they are planning to support the bill at second reading [which we do]. None of the three parties has stated its final position, however [it is clear]. There are many reservations.

Then we have the words of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

And what if the lack of hope crushed the desire for rehabilitation of the convicted and increased violence and the problems in prisons?

The journalist continues:

It is to the parties' credit that they want to study these bills carefully, because they will affect the lives of thousands of people. But their cautiousness is dictated in part by political imperatives and a direct reaction to the Conservative approach. The opposition avoids opposing a bill automatically, especially if it means defending the rights of the worst criminals.

We remember all too well the fate the Conservatives reserved for the former Liberal leader...The courts finally forced the Conservatives to give in...

The fear of being targeted in their turn by the Conservatives' populist and simplistic attacks is pushing the Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the NDP to watch what they say. Opposing a prejudice sometimes requires pointed arguments that rarely filter down to the public.

That is the whole debate. The faint hope clause is extremely important. We are told that we do not care about the victims. Yet victims are the reason for section 745 and the amendments to the Criminal Code. The Conservatives will have to understand that. One can see from the current provisions concerning the faint hope clause—and I will come back to this later if I have time, because I have a lot to say about it—that concern for victims is paramount. Why? Because there is no worse crime than taking a life, committing murder. It is the worst crime a person can commit. If we do not look after the victims in the case of murder, I do not know who will.

The Bloc Québécois believes that one priority is to ensure that this bill respects victims. They will have to be told how the bill works. There have been many changes to the legislation. Canada used to have the death penalty, which was abolished and replaced with life sentences. Offenders sentenced to life for first-degree murder must serve a minimum of 25 years.

For the people who are watching us, I will add that a first-degree murder is a premeditated murder. A person who analyzes, thinks, makes a decision and obtains the means to kill someone is committing premeditated murder. I have just one example in mind: the settling of accounts by the Hells Angels. It is clear that when the Hells Angels decided to end the reign of the Bandidos, they committed first-degree murders. These were premeditated murders.

Second degree murders are unpremeditated. My colleague from Hochelaga rightly mentioned an example earlier in this House. These are probably the most common and most familiar murders. Someone shows up at a place, finds his spouse with another person, and in a sudden act of madness decides to get rid of them, finds a weapon and kills them, commits an unpremeditated murder. This is a second degree murder. It remains a murder, however, and liable to life imprisonment.

Over the years, the options were improved, although it is difficult to use that term in this context. In my opinion, legislators were wise. They said that there were two options for a killer: either he himself is killed or he is kept in prison. If he is kept in prison, a solution has to be found. Might this person return to society one day? Legislators said he could return to society if he demonstrated improvement, demonstrated that he had changed.

It is the opinion of the Bloc Québécois that section 745.6 and following, as amended over the years, have three main purposes. First, they offer some hope for offenders who demonstrate significant ability to rehabilitate. I do not have to give names in this House, but we have heard testimony from informers and persons who testified in famous cases involving the Hells Angels and organized crime. They have appeared saying that they were killers, that they were paid to kill and they killed. Such a person must not return to society unless he has made very significant progress.

Furthermore, the objective of the faint hope clause was to motivate good conduct in prison and recognize that it was not in the public interest to continue incarcerating certain offenders beyond a period of 15 years. That being said, we need to look at how this works. There have been changes over the years, but an individual has always been permitted to come back before the court. If he is sentenced to 25 years, he will be able to come back. He had the faint hope clause. This is important.

It must be explained to the population that respect for victims is very important. In the bill before us, respect for victims and their families is very important. The murdered person can no longer appear to testify, but he leaves a family, a spouse, children and relatives in mourning. Obviously, recalling the murder is extremely difficult for these persons. Do we have to mention what happened at the École Polytechnique?

For the victims of these events, and for their parents, even though the murderer died by suicide, simply talking about the tragedy, as we saw this year, since it was the anniversary, is painful. December 6 will be forever stamped on these people’s lives.

Not everyone has access to the faint hope clause.

We have to understand that in the criminal lawyer’s jargon, an individual who commits first degree murder is said to have to serve a minimum sentence of 25 years. Second degree murder results in a sentence of between 10 and 15 years. Judges generally decide when the person may be released.

We will recall the unfortunate Latimer case, where the father killed his daughter because she could never have recovered. That was considered to be second degree murder. He was sentenced to serve a minimum of 10 years in prison. After his 10-year term, he came before the National Parole Board to make an application.

In assessing a murder, by following an extremely stringent procedure, we ensure that victims are respected and we ensure that we are not releasing criminals.

The individual must appear before the chief justice of the superior court or a judge designated by them to hear the case. The individual may apply to a judge of the superior court after serving the minimum required, 10 or 15 years, generally, for second degree murder, and 15 years for first degree murder. The chief justice of the superior court in the province where the murder was committed may allow the individual to apply for parole after considering all the facts. The individual must satisfy the judge, and the judge must consider all the facts. What kind of murder was it? What happened? Is it probable that the inmate will persuade a jury? If the judge allows the individual to appear before them and allows the individual to make an application, then the second step is reached. The judge then empanels a jury.

Since 1997, the jury has had to unanimously agree to allow the inmate to apply for parole. Before 1997, two thirds was sufficient. Now, it must be proved to the jury as a whole. The public has to understand that the fact that a judge agrees to hear a case does not mean that the judge will empanel a jury and the individual will automatically be released. No, it does not work that way.

The judge hears a case and has the individual appear before them. The individual calls witnesses, who are generally people from the Federal Training Centre. They explain that in 15 years the individual may have changed. That is when the judge empanels a jury. The jury cannot release the individual. The only thing the jury can do is say unanimously to the individual that it is satisfied that he or she may make an application for parole. The individual is not released yet; far from it. On some occasions a judge has asked for a jury to be empanelled, a jury was empanelled, evidence was given before the jury and the jury came to the conclusion that the individual could apply to the National Parole Board, and the individual was not released.

If the applicant passes the first two stages, and the jury permits him to apply for parole, he then has to appear before the National Parole Board. That is important.

If some people think that victims are not protected, they would do well to listen to the statistics. I am not talking about 15 years ago. I am talking about April 9, 2009.

On that date, 265 applications were submitted, and 140 applicants were given a reduced period of parole ineligibility. That is not many. This means that the judge, jury and National Parole Board do a very good job. One hundred and forty people were given a reduced period of parole ineligibility. They have not yet been released on parole. Of that number of applicants, the National Parole Board gave the reduction to 127, 13 of whom subsequently returned to prison—I will come back to this if I have the time—3 were deported, 11 died, one was on bail, one was in provisional detention and 98 met the conditions of their parole.

I can already see a Conservative colleague rising to ask me whether the 13 had re-offended, since they went back to prison. I asked the question. None of the 13 returned to prison for reasons of violence, such as armed robbery and so on. It was nothing like that. They broke the conditions of their parole. People have to understand. If an individual is released on parole before the end of his 25-year prison sentence, in the 18^th year of his 25-year sentence, he is subject to the requirements of parole between the 18^th and 25^th year. For 7 years, he is under very strict surveillance.

The proof is that there have been no repeat murders by those released on parole. There has been no violence, with all due respect to the member for Pontiac. No violence was committed by those paroled after committing murder. The finest example concerns Mr. Dunn, a lawyer, who killed his colleague, Mr. McNicoll, in Lac-Saint-Jean. It was a premeditated murder. He was released on parole after serving between 15 and 17 years of his prison sentence. Since then, Mr. Dunn, obviously no longer a lawyer, helps prisoners return to society. There you have the faint hope clause.

The Conservatives would like to eliminate the faint hope clause with this bill. In committee, we will have to look at it very carefully. I would like people who have served prison sentences for murder and benefited from the faint hope clause to come and testify before us. I say, with respect, that the system functions very well at the moment. It is under supervision.

We agree to this bill's being studied in committee. However, as I was in criminal law for a number of years, I believe deeply that the individual, however bad a criminal he may be, must be given the opportunity to return to society. Otherwise, we should give him the option to die in detention or give him the choice. We do not know, but some individuals have returned to society and become active members again even though they have committed serious crimes, murder being the worst.

I am having a very hard time with the idea of removing the faint hope clause. It would take a lot to convince me. I believe, however, that I can convince my colleagues. At the moment, there is such supervision that it would be a very serious error to not continue to allow individuals, the worst criminals, to benefit from the faint hope clause.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from the justice committee for his very passionate speech. I have certainly enjoyed working with him these last few months on the justice committee.

He is quite right in his description of how the faint hope clause currently works. It is an onerous task at times. The application has to be made before a superior court judge. If it makes it past that step, then it has to go before the parole board. Often these applications are unsuccessful. However, the real victims of those applications are the families of the deceased victims of the crime.

So, in those many cases, the faint hope clause application is just that, an application that is likely going to be unsuccessful from the beginning and the only people who are adversely affected are the families of the victims.

I would like him to comment on why we should put those people through the process when there is arguably little chance of success of the application on behalf of the offender and huge emotional costs for the families of the victims yet again.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I would say he has never gone before the National Parole Board. He has never pleaded the faint hope clause before the courts. I can tell him about it because I have.

It is very restrained. I agree it is hard for the victims’ families. However, they do not appear at any time in the process. The lawyer prepares the case and meets the client. Before the victims are informed, the case has to be good, as we say. Not just anything goes. People are not released just because they have served 25 years. I agree with my colleague when he says there are some people who should not be returned to society. In saying that, I can think of the names and faces of individuals who should not be freed. This applies clearly, for example, to multiple repeat offenders. That is obvious, and in any case, the problem was resolved in 1997.

I am talking about a person who committed a crime, a murder, once in his life. It is true that this is the worst crime of all. I agree there are victims and the families of victims. However, does this person not have the right to return to society and become an active member of it? If there is little chance for this person, he will not be returned to society. The safeguards surrounding release are so exact and well monitored. The proof—and this is what my colleague fails to understand—is that none of the 98 individuals who have been released have committed another violent crime. None. These are people, therefore, who have become active members of society. That is why the faint hope clause exists. They do not release anyone at all just because he has served 15 years of his sentence. That is not true. The Superior Court judges have undergone training on this and are very strict. The information they provide the jury before it makes a unanimous decision on the possibility of applying for parole is so strict that, as I say over and over, I think people should have an opportunity to take advantage of the faint hope clause, whether the hon. member for Pontiac likes it or not.

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

Madam Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question at this stage. I am thinking back to the confusing comments from the member for Mississauga South a few minutes ago when he was talking about how we should not be in such a rush to get this bill to committee and that there should be some real debate here at second reading.

I note that when the bill was originally introduced, the parliamentary secretary made the introduction, and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood asked the parliamentary secretary questions. He asked if the member could tell the House how many people are convicted on an annual basis for murder in our country. He asked how many people have been wrongfully convicted in the last while and had their sentences reversed. He asked how many applications there are on an annual basis for the faint-hope clause, and of those, how many people actually succeed.

He asked a series of questions, and the parliamentary secretary could not or would not answer the questions. He had to ask on three occasions and he got the same response. So I would think the member for Mississauga South, rather than admonishing us for wanting to get this bill to committee, should be out there defending his own members when they ask questions three times and get no answers from the government.

As a matter of fact, I am again not certain why he is making these comments when he and his party are not even participating in this debate, as far as the debate today is concerned.

If the member would like to comment on my comments, I would certainly welcome it.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals will probably not want to take part in this debate because they have formed a coalition with the Conservatives. There will be a major discussion, though, and it will catch up with them in any case. It will obviously catch up with them at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and they will be forced to take a stand.

I know the Liberal caucus is very divided now on the bill, but that will not stop the committee from studying it thoroughly.

To answer a question that the hon. member for Manicouagan will not have time to ask me, I want to say it is clear that victims will not have a chance to come and testify before the committee. However, with all due respect for my colleague from Manicouagan, I myself have defended people accused of murder and can say that when people return to society, they have generally tried hard and have worked with the victim’s family. They have been forgiven, which can mean a lot of things in different religions.

The House must understand that the individuals in our society who have benefited from the faint hope clause—all 98 of them— have gone on to become active members of society.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague who has experience as a criminal lawyer. As we know, the scales are an emblem of justice. What does it mean? It means that our society is seeking balance.

Should we disrupt this balance by amending or even removing the faint hope clause, what impact will that have on prisons? How will that affect the efforts to rehabilitate criminals?

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

Madam Speaker, how clever of the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. It is a shame that such a man is only a notary, because he would have made a very good lawyer.

Seriously, joking aside, I will say this: What does an individual with nothing to lose do in prison? He becomes the right-hand man of the most vicious criminals who still have a chance of getting out. We have seen a great many of those become hitmen in prison because they knew they would never be released. What can we do with these men if rehabilitation is excluded?

We will have to be careful. We are not talking about persistent repeat offenders or serial killers, because those have not been eligible since 1997. We are talking about an individual who killed only once. I am not suggesting that one should kill four times. I am talking about an individual who committed one murder and has come to terms with the frenzied act he committed. It might have been a premeditated murder. I could go on for days about such cases. I once had a client who planned for an entire week the murder of his wife's lover. It took seven years behind bar before he realized the error of his ways. When we eventually had him released after 17 years of imprisonment—he served 10 more years—he became an asset to society.

If that possibility is taken away, violence will certainly increase among detainees. That is what I think beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-36, which provides for tougher prison sentences for the most serious crimes. Before I begin, I would like to emphasize that legislators have a certain responsibility: they must give society the means to regulate itself and function appropriately. I do not claim to be either a lawyer or a notary, but it is important to me, as a legislator with a background in the social sector, to put my two cents in on today's debate. We often hear such questions as: what is the responsibility of legislators and what is their intention when passing and debating legislation? That is important.

My 307 colleagues in the House of Commons come from all walks of life and all segments of society. They have different training, education, belief systems and philosophies. Today, it is the responsibility of all members of this diverse group not only to express their viewpoint, but also to convince their colleagues that their viewpoint should come out on top. Afterward, of course, the democratic system will prevail in the House and we will vote. Democracy shapes our entire society, our entire justice system. Justice bills come before the House of Commons, and in the end, it is the members who say whether they approve of one thing or another. After that, judges, police officers and the entire legal system act according to the House of Commons' decision.

It is important for those listening to hear that we need more than a lawyers' debate. We need a debate that involves society as a whole, as represented by the 308 members of Parliament.

Obviously, society is changing in one direction or another. People often describe its moves as either to the left or to the right. I have the definite impression for some years now that it is moving a bit to the right. Thanks to the media, we now know within minutes when something terrible has happened. People react to this by saying that it makes no sense, that sentences should be more severe, and so on. We have to safeguard ourselves against that, because we are the ones who make the decisions when we debate and vote on things here. We are the ones who are going to decide how the sanctions relating to crimes before the courts will be applied in future.

The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that some crimes are very serious. Not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done. That is an expression we hear often: justice must appear to be done. Sometimes judges can err, they are human. We must not believe them to be invulnerable and incapable of making mistakes. And there are appeal courts where other judges will review cases. In the end, we must acknowledge that the system works, because there are provisions for appeal, possibilities for clarification, and if mistakes have occurred in the justice system along the way, there are means of correcting them.

It is my personal opinion, particularly with respect to hate crimes —terrible as they are—that society has moved a little to the right. We must face that fact. As a result, the Bloc Québécois does feel it is in favour of more severe sentences in some respects.

I would remind hon. members, however, that there are two societies in Canada: the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation. Those two nations sometimes do not share the same perceptions. We in the Bloc Québécois have a duty to express the perception of our nation. This is not the first time we have crossed swords with the Conservative Party or even the Liberal Party on the justice system. Among the very basic positions we espouse is the whole matter of rehabilitation and reintegration. This is not the first time we have discussed this, it is nothing new.

For instance, we discussed the young offenders bill for months, when the Liberal government wanted to crack down somewhat on young offenders, and make them subject to the same conditions as adult criminals.

I was one of the ones saying that if we take a 14- or 15-year old and throw them in prison with a sentence like the ones given to serious criminals, we are sending them to crime school. It is that simple.

The Bloc Québécois believes that our colleagues need to understand that rehabilitation and reintegration are very important. During these debates, we have shown that this approach is more productive than the hard-line method of sending them to prison. As I said earlier, prison is a crime school. When they get out, they are hardened criminals, and they are lost to us. That goes against the goal of the Quebec nation, which believes in rehabilitation and social reintegration. The statistics back up what I am saying.

The Bloc believes that rehabilitation and social reintegration are very important. In the debate to come, we must ensure that this point of view is not overlooked.

I would like to talk about some arguments that have been brought up. What we are examining today is the elimination of the faint hope clause. I ask members to put themselves in the place of a person who was sentenced for first or second degree murder or manslaughter, and who can hope to get out of prison if he behaves well and attends therapy. He can even become a contributing member of society. Once they get out of prison, once they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, many people will go on to become exemplary citizens. Earlier, we heard the example of Mr. Dunn, the lawyer. This is someone who had experience in this area, knew about the faint hope clause, got out of prison, and now helps people who are released from prison to get back on track. This has social and economic benefits that are important in a fair and just society. I think that is the path to follow. I urge members to put themselves in the place of someone who made a serious mistake—there is no denying that murder is very serious—and who is sentenced to 20 years in prison and must serve that sentence in full. What do these people have to lose?

When this is discussed in committee, it will be important to hear testimony from people who can tell us what impact it may have. How are people in prison who have no hope going to behave now? They will say they do not need to behave well because they are never getting out in any event. Imagine the repercussions this will have. These are things that have to be examined. We must not go straight to severe punishment and say that is an end to it. It is too easy to say that. As well, it does not take into account the economic costs to society. We often hear that. In some places, we no longer know what to do with the prison population. These are things that have to be examined.

This brings me to the committee stage. What the Bloc wants today, by voting on second reading, is precisely to be able to study the bill in committee. That is part of the parliamentary process, of the clarification of terms I talked about earlier, the responsibilities and intentions of legislators. We have to keep an open mind to listen to the witnesses and make sure we take the best possible position for society. The parliamentary process cannot be circumvented. We know how first reading works, it is automatic. Today, we are at the second reading stage, where we have the initial debate on the bill. However, the fundamental work will be done in the parliamentary committee. We will have an opportunity to hear everyone: former criminals, psychologists, psychiatrists, correctional officers, judges—although I am not certain we will be able to call judges. At least, we will be able to hear witnesses who will guide our thought process and inform the decision we will have to make. There is an excellent parliamentary process, so that on third reading we decide whether or not we support the bill, in light of the various testimony heard.

I would like to offer some facts regarding homicides. We know that there are first degree homicides. For the people listening to us, a first degree homicide is not complicated, it is really someone who planned their act. For example, it is a person who has it in for another person for X reason, or worse, a hired gun who is contracted by an individual to kill another person. They plan their act, using a bomb or a gun, but they know when the person leaves home, they know when the person always gets in the car and what route they take. When it can be proved in court that the individual planned the murder, they will be sentenced to 25 years to life with no possibility of parole.

Second degree homicide is less serious because there was no premeditation. There is also manslaughter, which is somewhat in the nature of negligence. We have the example in our documents of an individual who, for fun, shoots through a window, and someone on the other side is hit by the bullet. That is not considered to be first degree murder because it was not planned, but it is so negligent that it will be punished under the Criminal Code.

There are also crimes that are automatically like first degree murders. There are crimes for which there is no flexibility at all, such as, for example, killing a police officer or a prison guard, sexual assault, hijacking, and hostage taking. As I said earlier, those are the things that the legislation is targeting. Those penalties were introduced to ensure that if these crimes are committed in the context that I just described, then they are tantamount to first degree murder.

I want to say a few words on the faint hope clause. What is the faint hope clause? This issue was first raised in Parliament when the death penalty was abolished in Canada, back in 1976, and it was decided to introduce a faint hope clause.

An individual is not eligible for parole until he has served 15 years of this sentence, at which time he may apply for parole. However, there is a whole process involved. I think it is important to be familiar with this process. In fact, it is not just about writing a letter to the chief justice and wait for his reply to be released. There is more than that. There are benchmarks and a series of procedures, because we cannot afford to make a mistake.

The applicant must appear before the chief justice of the province where he was convicted, and he must try to convince him there is a real possibility that he will be released, and that a jury—which is the second step—is going to say that, in its opinion, the applicant is indeed eligible. So, the individual must first convince the judge, and he is often successful. When the judge says that, in his opinion, the applicant has not shown that a jury could reduce his sentence, then the individual goes back to jail.

However, if the judge says, “yes, you have convinced me that a jury may take your good behaviour into consideration”, then we move on to the next step, which is precisely to convince a jury that is made up of 12 citizens. The jury is a very important part of the justice system. The individual is judged by his peers who, like members of Parliament, come from all walks of life. They all have a different behaviour, education and way of life, and they will either say “yes” or “no” to the individual. They can reduce his sentence and decide whether he is now ready to ask the National Parole Board, within a reasonable period of time, to reduce his sentence. This is how things work.

The bill that is before us seeks to eliminate this faint hope clause. This could be a mistake, because people who are in jail will no longer have anything to lose, knowing that they cannot get their release, that they will no longer have any chance of getting back into society.

What is the good of that for someone who admits to having made a mistake and who wants to correct it because he feels guilty? The psychologists and psychiatrists assisting them help them realize what their crime has cost society. After a few years, the person may realize that he should not have done what he did and that society has suffered for it. Now he wants to do something for society, and not just develop exemplary behaviour but place himself at the service of the public and society upon his release, to put things right.

So there is a danger of ending all that. Furthermore, in my opinion, it is logical to think that if a person is sentenced to life and can never get out of prison, he will have no interest in making amends for what he has done. This has to be discussed in committee. It is being discussed at second reading, and ultimately it should be discussed at third reading, before this bill goes beyond the parameters decided by the House of Commons.

The faint hope clause continues to apply, and we see it as extremely important. The government is introducing new provisions here which will hugely restrict the faint hope clause. Among other things, at present the judge has to be convinced that there is a reasonable prospect of the jury agreeing to lighten the sentence. Under Bill C-36, substantial likelihood must be demonstrated to the judge, which is a little stronger than a reasonable prospect. This is a first restriction. If the bill is passed, judges will be under orders to hand down harsher decisions. A substantial likelihood is more demanding than a reasonable prospect.

Furthermore, a judge may refuse an application. The application can be made again after two years. With this bill, it can be made only after five years for sentences of 15 to 25 years. Someone who fails will be confined for another five years. If this had been only two years, he would have been able to accelerate his rehabilitation and training to make himself useful, etc. By stretching out the waiting periods, people are prevented from doing this. There are factors to be taken into consideration. It is not a question of telling them it is five years instead of two. The system has to get moving and evaluate the possibilities of reintegrating these persons.

We therefore have many reservations about this bill. However we have to assume our responsibilities as legislators. When we first arrive in the House—I remember arriving here in 1993—we do not yet fully see the impact on society of our responsibilities. Today we have a good example of this.

Every time a bill is developed, there is this concern. People from all walks of life explain, discuss, do the groundwork and study the subject in depth before making a decision. Indeed, as legislators, we cannot afford to make errors on societal initiatives. We do what we can to get them as close as possible to perfection. We are not perfect beings, any more than judges, who can also make mistakes, but we can see to it that our parameters are solid, that they are studied seriously and that they improve society. That is our intention.

I have been pleased to take part in this debate today. I do not have the legal training of a lawyer or notary, and I have no training in law, but I am trained in physical education. I have also worked in a reception centre and a union where, in my opinion, justice is extremely important.

This permits me to bring a particular view, to listen to other colleagues who have other types of training, other types of life experiences, and who also bring a different view. It is by considering all these views and making all these compromises that we will finally produce a bill that is as fair as possible for society.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been waiting to hear from the Liberals all morning, but I think they have gone home. I want to let them know that we are still in session.

The member for Mississauga South was complaining about second reading being a time for debate, and he was criticizing the NDP speakers, of which there have been four already this morning, for wanting the bill to go to committee so that we can hear from the presenters and introduce amendments to improve victims' rights and improve the bill. He makes those criticisms, and neither he nor the Liberal Party are putting up any speakers on the bill.

When the bill was first introduced by the government, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and the member for Brampton West were the only two Liberal speakers on the bill.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood was not actually speaking to the bill; he was just asking a question of the minister. He was trying to get information from the minister, just asking simple questions to the parliamentary secretary, who introduced the bill for the government, on how many people are convicted, on an annual basis, of murder in this country, and a series of very important questions, for which he could not get an answer from the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary did not even know the rudimentary answers to these questions. The member had to ask a second time. He got the same sort of non-response, and in fact, he had to ask a third time.

I would like to know where all these Liberal members are. They should be here defending the honour of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, who could not get answers to all these questions on three occasions. Where are they, and why are they not asking these questions?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his comment. It was not exactly a question, but I appreciate the opportunity to take the reasoning further with respect to the responsibility of lawmakers.

The Bloc Québécois is always committed to ensuring that society work better. Unfortunately, it has become virtually common practice in this House for partisanship to prevail and, often, for parliamentary tactics to be devised to make sure that people will not speak or try to say anything more.

It will be noted that there are provisions in our procedural documents concerning those who would like to speak too long. It is akin to unduly drawing out the debate. I do not think, however, that there is anything in our procedural documents about requiring anyone to speak. That is when interpretations might come about, as the hon. member said, or perhaps partisanship will prevent some members from speaking. It is a bit of a shame because, as I indicated earlier, we need to hear the views of all our colleagues in order to set the parameters of a given bill and ensure that an informed decision can be made based on all the information from various sources. It has happened on a number of occasions that partisanship and parliamentary tactics prevailed. Like him, I think it is a shame.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to my colleague's speech on Bill C-36. From what I have gathered of his position, it is fairly much in line with the stands that the Bloc Québécois has taken in the past.

On the one hand, we have to be able to ensure that the people of Quebec and Canada can continue to have confidence in their justice system. This is fundamental if we are to have a certain form of justice. That confidence in the system has to be preserved, while at the same time acknowledging that rehabilitation and reintegration are basic requirements to society.

I would therefore like to hear my colleague's explanation of how the position he has expressed today makes it possible to maintain that balance and to reconcile the importance of maintaining confidence in the system while at the same time rehabilitating as many citizens as possible and bringing them back into our society.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent question. Indeed, the very basis of my argument today was the combination of justice and the appearance of justice, which are two different things.

Sometimes a judge brings down a ruling and people object to it. But perhaps he was right, in the end. People's perception of the judge's decision, however, ends up making them lose confidence in the justice system.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of possibly treating horrendous crimes and hate crimes more severely, but that does not mean neglecting the broad issue of rehabilitation and reintegration, which is so fundamental to the Quebec nation.

This is the means of reintegrating people back into society as active, proactive and positive members of Quebec society. Drastic measures such as restoring the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole are not the way to do that.

There is a fine line to be drawn here. We may not be able to rehabilitate criminals who have committed 25 murders, but when someone has killed one person and realizes how wrong it was during his time in jail, he needs to have the chance to redeem himself. Society will gain from this.

So that is the fine balance between the two: the appearance of justice, yes, and justice itself. but also the possibility of reintegration into society. This is an absolutely essential element for the Bloc Québécois.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I would like to inform the member at the outset that he may begin his speech, but I will have to interrupt him at 2 p.m. He can resume his speech after question period.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe I have four or five minutes to explain my position on Bill C-36. Very briefly, I would first like to talk about what we are proposing and what we would like to do with Bill C-36. As my colleagues have already said, we want to see this bill referred to committee for further study.

I would also like to come back to certain aspects of my question and of the answer given by my colleague from Saint-Jean, who spoke earlier, in relation to some of the principles we have talked about in the past regarding justice.

It is important that the people of Quebec and Canada maintain their trust the judicial system. We must ensure that everyone who lives in communities and cities, in all provinces of this country, continues to trust our judicial system because it can be abused at any given time. At the same time, we are not giving the government a free pass or blank cheque at this time, especially not a Conservative government, which tries to use law and order to impose its ideology.

In all the bills related to justice, what we have clearly seen is a government that wanted to be more punitive, that wanted to put more people in prison at a time when our prisons are already full. The approach we have taken in Quebec, however, focuses on rehabilitation and helping people return to society. What people must understand is that the idea of parole is closely linked to the rehabilitation and reintegration process.

Who specifically does Bill C-36 target? Those people who have been found guilty of a serious crime, of homicide or first-degree murder, for example. What is the intent of the bill? To limit or restrict the faint hope principle, the faint hope clause, which gives those incarcerated the chance to apply for parole. Given that Quebec has developed a model based on cooperation, education, collaboration, good communication and rehabilitation in our society, the government should be open enough to having the parliamentary committee make amendments rather than stubbornly taking an ideological approach to justice. Common sense and flexibility should make it apparent to this government that a more in-depth study of this bill by a parliamentary committee is important.

Since I am being told that I have one or two minutes left, I will be brief. As I said, the bill seeks to eliminate use of the faint hope clause by criminals convicted of the most serious crimes after the bill is adopted. Those found guilty of treason or murder in the first or second degree will no longer be able to apply for early parole, even if they have served 15 years of their sentence. With regard to those already incarcerated, when the law comes into force, they will still have recourse to section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, but there will be greater restrictions on obtaining early parole. To that end, the government will make three important amendments. The burden of proof will be greater for an offender who applies to a judge for a reduction in his ineligibility period.

With a more stringent process, the incarcerated person will have to shoulder a greater burden of proof.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have 15 minutes when debate resumes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government recently introduced a bill that would eliminate a provision that has been in the Criminal Code since 1976, the same year, I should point out, that Parliament voted to eliminate the death penalty. It replaced the death penalty for the most serious crimes—first degree murder and treason—with a minimum sentence of life in prison. The same applied to second degree murder, which was also deemed punishable by a minimum sentence of life in prison. In addition, those found guilty were not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Many people are still confused about this and think that the sentence for murder is 25 years. But the sentence for murder is still life in prison, as it is for all degrees of murder. Also, eligibility for parole does not mean that a person automatically gets parole, just that he or she has the right to apply to the National Parole Board, which can deny the request, as it does in many cases.

That same year, they decided to establish a faint hope clause for certain reasons I will discuss shortly. After a certain amount of time, people who had been convicted of first degree murder were eligible after 25 years and could apply to a court consisting of a judge and jury for their date of eligibility for parole to be reduced to 15 years. It was the same for people who had been convicted of second degree murder, that is to say, for people who had been sentenced to life but whose date of parole eligibility varied according to the decision made by the judge who presided over the jury that convicted them. It could vary between 10 and 25 years. People who had received the longest sentence before being eligible for parole could also apply to a jury after 15 years. This does not mean they would necessarily be paroled. I will say in a moment how many applied and how many were successful.

Back in 1976, the members who voted to abolish the death penalty and decided to provide this faint hope clause had three main objectives.

First, they wanted to give some hope to offenders who demonstrated a considerable ability to rehabilitate themselves. If paroled, these people could return to society and it was necessary to make very sure that their efforts to rehabilitate themselves were convincing.

Second, the members wanted to encourage good behaviour in prison. In Canada and elsewhere in the world, it is inmates who have nothing more to lose who cause problems. They may also influence other inmates and sometimes initiate the riots we see occasionally in penitentiaries. Henceforth, they had something to gain and might behave better.

Finally, the members recognized that it was not in the public interest to continue incarcerating certain offenders beyond 15 years.

In some exceptional cases, there are people who have reasons to commit murder. I want to remind the House, though, that we never talk about compassionate murder in Canada because murder is murder. For example, there was the individual who killed out of compassion his child who suffered from a very painful illness and lived a really inhuman life. He was convicted of murder because compassionate killing is not an excuse in Canada. However, there can still be some exceptional cases and circumstances. There could be young people who kill a disgraceful father who beats his wife, their mother. People are incarcerated on the basis of all kinds of horrors. I think murder is one of the crimes with the broadest array of motives. In fact, a lawyer who killed his associate to get his life insurance has also benefited from this legislation.

I do not think we can talk about abuse in this area. I want to say at the outset that I am still open on this issue. The Conservatives’ motives are very similar to those of the Republicans from the southern United States, who have had so much influence on the American system—to the point that it is the most punitive in the world.

At present, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. They have had stiff competition from Russia, which was almost level with them. They are ahead of China. They incarcerate seven times more people, proportionately, than we do in Canada. I believe, I feel, and I have often said this, when I hear them talk, that their motivations for transforming the criminal law are not to make it better, to make it more effective against crime. Their motivations are clearly purely political, because it is popular to get tough on crime. In fact, humanity was very tough long before the emergence of the civilized countries in America, Western Europe and, increasingly, Europe as a whole.

The distaste I feel for their motivations should not influence me against considering a bill that is in fact a serious one. I know that is the only motivation they need: tearing down what has been done in the past. Giving the impression they are tough. To them, tough means smart. To us, no. Being smart does not necessarily mean being tough. We need to be tough when it is called for, but we have to recognize the possibility of rehabilitation and take more effective measures to combat crime. That is why I fight so hard for registering all firearms. It has a real effect on the most serious crime, homicide.

Let us talk about first degree murder. In fact, I think murder is more than manslaughter, necessarily. Murder is more than killing. Murder is killing with intent to kill. It is doing something that will reasonably lead to death, and not caring. It is firing a shot at a person and not caring whether that person dies or not. In the case of murder, there really is an element of intent which means that the person has done the most serious thing that a person can do on earth.

That calls for severe punishment in itself. Very serious consequences must be imposed on someone who commits this kind of crime. I think when we abolished the death penalty, we showed that we were humane, particularly as we have realized over time, given that the homicide rate has declined steadily in Canada since 1976 and has continued to decline in recent years, that fear of the death penalty did not have the deterrent effect ascribed to it. We took away that deterrent and there was no increase in the number of homicides.

But it cannot be said that it has been abused significantly. At present, there are 4,000 inmates in Canada serving life sentences. They could apply under the faint hope clause. Over the years, 265 people have applied under that clause. Of those 265 applicants, only 140 have been granted a reduction of the time to be served before applying for parole. That is 52%, about half. About half of the people who sought to apply under that clause have been rejected. So the number of individuals who have applied for this is not high in comparison to the number of individuals serving life sentences.

But that is not all. Once the applicants make that request, they must go before a judge. The chief justice, or a judge appointed by him, must first decide if there is a reasonable chance that the application will be accepted—in other words, whether it is justified—by a jury made up of 12 peers, of ordinary citizens who will have to vote and who should form a significant sample. The jury's verdict must be unanimous. At one time, a two-third majority was good enough, but that is no longer the case since 1997. So, close to half of all the applications under the faint hope clause were rejected.

Once an individual is allowed to go before a jury and gets a unanimous verdict to become eligible for early parole, it still does not mean he is going to get it. The National Parole Board has granted early parole in only 127 cases. So, out of the 140 applicants who went before a jury and got the jury's unanimous agreement to apply for early parole, only 127 were successful before the National Parole Board. So, there is another thorough review at that level.

What happened to these 127 individuals? Only 13 of them have gone back to jail for various reasons. So, this means 5% of those who made an application, and 10% of those whose application was accepted. Out of that number, 11 applicants are deceased. Others were deported, but only a very small number. In fact, three applicants were deported and one is free on bail.

So, it is not like we abused this clause. It is clear that it applies to exceptional cases, and that it is used exceptionally. I do not have much sympathy for murderers. On the contrary, as I said, this is the most serious crime and very serious consequences should be imposed on someone who commits such a crime. Still, I think that the reasons why this faint hope clause was included are good. In fact, not only is the recidivism rate very low, but some applicants who availed themselves of that option went on to play a useful role in society.

Take, for example, the lawyer who had killed his business associate and had tried to make it look like a hunting accident. He made an application under that clause and, since then, this person, who has a university degree, has been helping people on parole start a new and honest life.

Before making a decision on these issues, we must examine them thoroughly. The government did not provide us with any study to justify its position. This government has no justification other than reconsidering legislative provisions that seem too good to inmates. The government raised this issue, and it had the right to do so. I think we should take a close look at it. That is why my party will support the principle of the bill. I personally believe that this is a very serious issue. I will come with an open mind. I would like as much information as possible on the 127 inmates who benefited from the faint hope clause, and I would also like to know about patterns and about the type of persons that these individuals were. I also hope we will hear about failures, because there are some.

I recall seeing on TV reports on two or three highly publicized cases. Several shows were dedicated to the same individuals at different times. I have always been very sensitive to this issue because I have been dealing with crime ever since becoming a lawyer back in 1966. I am very sensitive to these issues. I hope that the worst cases will be brought forward. Then, we will be able to determine whether or not it is worthwhile to maintain this exceptional provision with respect to a very small number of cases. In our caucus, our culture and our religious culture, whether our background is Jewish, Arab or Christian, like mine, we consider forgiveness as a sign of civilization. There is no doubt that, in the case of individuals who have committed such serious crimes as murder, this forgiveness must entail major consequences.

In our culture, forgiveness is regarded as a value. I remember two of the greatest movies I have ever seen, namely Amadeus and Ghandi, making quite an impression on me. In the latter, an individual felt the need to go to Ghandi to confide in him. Ghandi was a man of peace who lived at a time when very harsh conflicts were opposing Muslims and Hindus. This individual told Ghandi that, seething with rage over the harm done to him, he had grabbed a child by its feet and smashed its head against the walls. “How could I do something so wrong?”, he asked Ghandi. To what Ghandi replied that, for his penance, he should take in a young Muslim—the individual being a Hindu—and raise him as his own son.

The notion of forgiveness exists in our cultures, but one has to deserve forgiveness. In the present case, there are many ways to ensure that an individual deserves it. We will look at that in committee. I hope that we will be better informed than by the sparse documentation we have received from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member very intently. I listened to his description of how he was curious to hear about the 127 successful applicants, about which were the most serious, and about the difficult and detailed process that individuals must go through if they are going to proceed with the faint hope clause application.

However, I never once heard him talk about the victims or the families of the victims. I want to ask him a very specific question. Does he not believe that the faint hope clause is detrimental to mental closure for the families of victims? They have to monitor the proceedings and sometimes testify before the court applications that determine whether or not a faint hope application will be made. Then, they ultimately testify at the National Parole Board if a faint hope application is granted.

Does he not agree that those families of victims ought to be spared that mental trauma and ultimately get closure from these criminal proceedings, and the harm that that causes to those families?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I think about the victims, but I have always thought about them. I understand families' desire for revenge, and I would be the first person to want revenge if anything happened to my children or, soon, my grandchildren.

It is strange, because we have talked a great deal about this in Quebec recently because of a horrific murder that took place. A surgeon who was highly respected in his community attacked and killed his two children when his wife left him. His wife said that she was willing to forgive him. In fact, she said something extremely moving at the funeral of their son, Olivier—my son's name is also Olivier. She asked that, in the next world, her son try to help his father recover. I do not remember exactly what she said, but it was very moving.

I do not believe that revenge is good for the person who seeks it, although I understand why people feel the way they do. Certainly, when you fight crime and spend your whole life looking for the most effective ways to do so, as I did in the past, it is because you are thinking of the victims. I do not believe that deterrence or the desire for revenge does anything for the victims. We need to help them in other ways. We need to provide them with psychological care, but that does not mean promising a heavier sentence. A heavier sentence is not better for the victims. Perhaps it would be if the original sentence were so light as to be ridiculous, but that is certainly not what we are talking about here.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for a very balanced, thoughtful and well articulated case with respect to this bill at second reading.

We have debated dozens of crime bills, certainly since I was first elected. I have been happy to support some of them. Others have given me pause for thought, so I thought it was particularly useful in this debate to have the member speak a bit about the difference between being tough on crime and being smart on crime.

I find that sometimes, in our rush to be labelled as being particularly proactive on matters relating to law and order, we forget the sense of justice a little bit. We have a law and order system now sometimes more than we have a justice system. I am encouraged by the fact that this bill is going to get considerable consideration before committee.

However, I wonder if the member thinks that there is enough goodwill among committee members to make the necessary amendments that have been outlined by my colleagues here earlier today. For example, the member for Vancouver East and the member for Burnaby—Douglas have both done a great job at articulating our concerns.

I wonder whether he thinks that there is an ability, and enough time and research on that committee to make this bill work in the interests of Canadians and in the interests of justice.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the members of that committee and not just to offenders, as our legislation allows us. When we are convinced of something, we can encourage the committee to do the necessary research. I think most of the members of the committee I sit on will be open to that idea. That is why I hope we will explore the issue even further before making any important decisions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his incredibly thoughtful comments on this bill.

I too share the same feelings as my colleague. I have a high respect for the judicial process and I have a high respect not just for the judges in that process, the prosecutors and the defence counsel but also for the people on parole boards, the social workers and the parole officers.

We have developed our judicial system over time. It is very important that there are avenues to have a second look at what went on. There are many circumstances in our society where people become involved in crime, including extremely violent crime, due to their own unfortunate pasts. As well, over time, the families of the victims sometimes want to forgive and so forth.

Therefore, I think it is very important to maintain these processes in Canada as we have in the past. We have had many circumstances where it is very clear that we need to have this provision remain in law, and I think it arises in certain exceptional circumstances.

I would welcome the member's comments on why, in his incredibly rich past in the judicial process, he feels so strongly that this tradition should remain.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said I like to keep an open mind. When this bill was presented to me, I was not sure what position to take and I honestly considered both sides. Although my colleague feels that I am someone who has more experience in this area and that I have had the opportunity to think about it longer, I can tell her that I remain undecided. I would like get greater clarification on certain cases in which this has been granted, including some in which it did not work, in order to make a decision. It is true that my approach tends to be closer to that of Gandhi.

[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 motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)