Bill C-343 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons:
(a) the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence;
(b) the disappearance of their minor child;
(c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; or
(d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

Employment Insurance

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee I was shocked to see the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition band together yet again to support Bill C-343. This bill would provide thousands of dollars through EI to pay for parents to stay home with youth criminals who have been injured while committing a crime such as robbery or gang activity.

Can the minister state our Conservative government's position on this coalition bill that would reward young criminals?

Families of Victims of Crime

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government lacks all credibility when it comes to supporting the families of victims of crime. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Conservative members were the only ones who voted against Bill C-343, which provides financial support to victims' loved ones. The AFPAD, the murdered or missing persons' families' association of Quebec, has been calling for this kind of financial assistance.

Will the minister have the courage to tell us why her government opposed the Bloc Québécois bill meant to help the families of victims of crime?

Bill C-343

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition proved once again that it is soft on crime and cares more about criminals than victims and law-abiding Canadians. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP banded together yesterday at the HUMA committee and supported and passed Bloc Bill C-343 that would reward youth criminals.

Bill C-343 would provide thousands of dollars from EI for parents to stay home and take care of youth criminals who were injured while committing a crime, such as robbery, arson, gang activity or other criminal acts. The bill would result in increased EI premiums for law-abiding Canadian families and business owners who would be forced to pay even more money to these criminals. It is shocking.

The bill is offensive to victims and to law-abiding Canadians. Our Conservative government will never support a bill that rewards criminals. Unlike the coalition, our government will continue to stand up for victims and for hard-working Canadian families.

Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my speech on Bill C-31, which aims to preclude criminals over age 65 from receiving old age security benefits.

My hon. colleague from Hochelaga was quite right to remind me earlier that there are several kinds of victims in society, including victims of crime and victims of economic crime, and that one serious economic crime is depriving people, such as seniors who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, and we know who is doing that. The same is true for people entitled to EI benefits. Yet, the Conservatives have found a way to take away those benefits.

The Conservative government sings its own praises and takes pride in defending victims' interests. But something is not right. My colleague from Compton—Stanstead introduced Bill C-343 in support of victims of crime. In accordance with the will of the majority of the House, this bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. But five Conservatives voted against it. That was the first time since I came to this House that a bill specifically meant to help victims of crime had been introduced and, contrary to expectations, the same Conservatives who claim to defend the interests of victims of crime voted against it. That is the real face of this party, which is hypocritical and lies to the public. All it wants is to complicate legislation concerning criminals.

I mentioned this morning that a number of these bills were supported by the Bloc Québécois because none of them were that excessive. The Conservatives have voted against our every effort to make amendments in support of victims.

To conclude, I would like to say again that we will support Bill C-31 because it establishes a balance between those who qualify for old age pensions and those who do not. Of course, criminals do not qualify. However, we strongly condemn the fact that the government is not following through on its commitment to help victims of crime. In fact, it stonewalls all attempts to do just that.

I hope that when the time comes, when we come back to the House for third reading of Bill C-343, all members of the House of Commons will vote in favour of it, including our Conservative colleagues who, this time, might have the heart to support victims of crime.

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I call to order meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the orders of the day, we are continuing to look at Bill C-343, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).

We will have one witness before us today.

We welcome you and thank you for being here, Mr. Marcel Bolduc. Can you hear us all right?

[Michel Laroche, President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Michel Laroche and I am President of the Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinées ou Disparues which represents some 575 families in Quebec and more than 10,000 individuals. We are a small group of volunteers on an 11-person board of directors who are working to improve the living conditions of families hard-hit by this kind of tragedy.

The Association has two types of members: families in which one or more members has been killed; and families in which a member has gone missing in seemingly criminal circumstances.

We support the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code to grant between 52 and 104 weeks of unpaid leave to employees who must be absent from work following the disappearance of a minor child or the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child.

We also support the proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, to enable those persons to receive benefits for up to 52 weeks, instead of the 15 weeks currently provided for.

We are aware that victims and victims' families are increasingly part of the political and legislative landscape, and we are pleased that is the case. A number of bills and Criminal Code amendments provide for the needs and expectations of the families of victims or murdered persons. But more can be done.

Bill C-343 is a real opportunity to show just how much more can be done, because victims' families sometimes need real support, particularly financial support, following an incident of this kind. Shouldn't we as a society do everything we can to help these people? The victims' rights movement has grown and people have finally understood that victims' families need to be taken care of.

Our association was created to provide support and understanding to stricken families, and I believe it is doing a good job in that respect. However, family members also need financial resources. That is a fact, and our association cannot meet those needs. Yes, the Quebec Crime Victims Compensation Act does provide compensation to offset funeral expenses. Yes, it does offer psychological rehabilitation services and other forms of compensation, but that is not enough. It does not pay for groceries, rent or ongoing household expenses following a murder or disappearance.

Allow me to describe what these people have to go through, bearing in mind the tragic events that some of our members have experienced. I will not mention their names.

The first case involves a woman. Several years ago, two of her children were murdered by her former spouse, who then committed suicide. She found herself unemployed as her former spouse was also her employer. She was now alone in the world, because her parents were no longer alive, and was so distraught following this terrible tragedy that welfare authorities had to care for her temporarily. Several months later, she began putting her life back together. She returned to university, wrote a book telling her story, entitled The Survivor, and today gives lectures and provides support to others who have suffered through appalling ordeals.

Let's not forget that the physical and mental health of family members is severely affected following such an incident. Despite their pain and suffering, many have to go back to work in order to support themselves. It is terrible to think that they are abandoned to their fate, and have to return to the labour market as though nothing had happened. In many cases, they try but are unable to continue working when they become deeply depressed.

Another case I have in mind involves a mother whose child was taken from her by her partner, who then committed suicide after the murder. Fifteen weeks after this incident, she was admitted to hospital. She only began to feel better a year later, and she told me that the first year after the incident had occurred was the hardest, because of the child's birthday, Christmas and many other events of daily life that reminded her of the loss of her child.

These stories were all told to me by people who recently confided in me, and that is why I am telling them today.

Another woman had four children. Her husband murdered her. The woman's mother took charge of her children. After suffering a stroke, she returned to work. But at one point, she had to stop for health reasons. She went on welfare and only had very little income with which to support the children.

However, some do manage to recover sooner. Each case is different.

Another case involved a woman who is an emergency physician. Her two children, aged three and five, were murdered by her husband. She never saw it coming. We supported her throughout her ordeal. She went back to work, even though the cries of children arriving at emergency reminded her of the tragedy. Today she sits on the board of directors of our association and, through her courage and determination, is able to help other victims. She remains extremely fragile, however, even though she comes across as a strong woman.

Now what can be said about cases where children go missing? Unfortunately Quebec has been shaken by a number of such cases in recent years—in particular, Cédrika Provencher, Julie Surprenant, Jolène Riendeau, David Fortin, Diane Grégoire and Marilyn Bergeron, to name only a few.

I have appended to my notes three personal stories, two of which involve missing children: that of Caroline Lachance, mother of David Fortin, who has been missing for 21 months, and Andrée Béchard, mother of Marilyn Bergeron, who has been missing for 33 months. Their stories are tragic and terribly moving. I invite you to read them.

Family members affected by a missing child can only go back to their everyday activities with great difficulty. They have access to some support, but not financial assistance. Additional financial concerns are the last thing they need. Need I say more? The measures proposed in Bill C-343 are long overdue and accurately reflect the needs of family members of individuals who have been murdered or gone missing.

In closing, would it not be appropriate to avoid restricting measures dealing with missing people to missing minor children? Clause 2 of the bill, which amends section 206.5 of the Canada Labour Code, and clause 3 of the bill, which amends the Employment Insurance Act, should refer to a missing child, and not only a missing minor child.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, that's correct. My bill, Bill C-343, is intended to amend legislation to include the concept of “family leave”. You can't go from one bill to the next and keep on repeating the same things. Bill C-56 was aimed at self-employed workers and people who have their own business, while my bill applies to a different category of people—those affected by violence.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-343, which I have been working on now for almost four years.

The bill, entitled An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), has two parts to it. First of all, it proposes amending the Canada Labour Code to provide unpaid leave to employees who are required to be away from work following a suicide, the disappearance of their child or the commission of a criminal offence against a member of their immediate family.

The leave of absence proposed in the bill would work as follows. For the parents of minors, a leave of absence of up to 104 weeks would be available in cases of death resulting from a criminal offence or serious bodily harm requiring the employee to stay with the child. The same would apply to a missing child: the parents could retain their work attachment and take a leave of absence of up to 52 weeks. For the spouse, common-law partner or parent, the bill provides for a leave of absence of up to 52 weeks for death by suicide, and 104 weeks if death is the direct result of a criminal offence.

This bill also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these individuals to receive a new type of special benefits for family leave. Having said that, for parents whose minor children are missing or suffered serious physical injury as the direct result of a criminal offence, for parents whose children committed suicide, for an employee whose spouse committed suicide, for the parents of a minor child who died as the result of a criminal offence and for an employee whose spouse died the result of a criminal offence, eligibility for the new benefit would be based on the current rules for special benefits. A beneficiary would have to have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable earnings in order to be eligible for up to 52 weeks of benefits.

In December of 2007, the Quebec National Assembly led the way in this area when it passed Bill 58. Under that legislation, employees and their families who are victims of crime are entitled to take unpaid leave and still keep their jobs for a period of up to 104 weeks. The families of Quebec workers who are mourning a suicide or have a missing child are entitled to 52 weeks of benefits.

Unfortunately, current federal legislation discriminates against the 275,000 Quebeckers whose work falls under the Canada Labour Code. These workers do not benefit from their job attachment and are simply entitled to 15 weeks of sick leave. Up until now, the inaction of lawmakers in this area has resulted in two tiers of workers being created: those who are able to get through difficult times with their jobs intact, and those who are forced to chose between losing their jobs and returning quickly to work. Furthermore, it is one thing to allow people to take leave, but if they have no income to live on in the meantime, the results will be the same. They will have no choice but to return to work quickly. It is that much more difficult for them, under the circumstances, to rebuild their life.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, which has always shown concern for victims and their families, the federal government should immediately follow Quebec's lead. It is a well-known fact that suicide, violent crimes and disappearances cause great psychological distress for many parents and spouses. The waiting and worrying, mourning and often feelings of depression are part of the everyday lives of victims' families, often for extended periods. Indeed, in case of murders and disappearances in particular, more than two years can sometimes pass between the criminal act and the completion of the investigation. Throughout that period, family members are deeply affected by the events and cannot resume their normal activities. They have access to support and help, but they have no financial support. Additional financial worries are the last thing they need.

It is terrible to think that these people are simply being left to fend for themselves and have to keep working throughout that period as if nothing had happened, because they have to provide for their family, as we all do.

These people need time to come through such an ordeal and gradually rejoin the workforce at their own pace. It is in order to help these families that I am fighting today, and calling for the cooperation of all the parties. After all, given their pain and suffering and the other effects of violent acts, are the victims' families not victims themselves?

The mourning process following a disappearance, murder or suicide is longer and more complex than in other instances, particularly when rape or violence has taken place. People are more likely to experience feelings of frustration, rage and powerlessness. This is especially true when a crime or suicide is involved.

Those who oppose my bill claim that these new measures will be too costly. I have heard some members of Parliament say that this bill will cost $400 million, which is incorrect. Fortunately, this kind of tragic event giving rise to the payment of 52 weeks of benefits is rare. For the same reason, there are few people who will be eligible for these new employment insurance benefits if the bill passes.

Every person has his or her own way of mourning the loss of a loved one, but for some eligible people, the loss of income associated with EI benefits is not an option. It is also clear that, for some people, remaining at work is a way to return to a normal life after a certain period of time. There are also people who do not work or who cannot find work that is insured under the Employment Insurance program, or who do not work enough hours to be eligible for benefits.

Therefore, self-employed workers are automatically excluded. Individuals who have not worked a minimum of 26 weeks in the year preceding the criminal act or the disappearance would not be eligible. They represent approximately 18% of the labour force. Acts of suicide by a single person or individuals without close family members would also be excluded.

For all these reasons, we are nowhere near the $400 million projected by this government. Although it is difficult to determine exactly how many people would receive the benefits created through this legislation, a Bloc Québécois study has established that approximately 8,000 people would be affected by this bill's provisions.

With the benefits set at $340 and the eligibility threshold at 65%—which is one of the goals of the Bloc Québécois' overall agenda—the cost would be approximately $50 million a year. However, based on the current eligibility threshold of 45%, it is realistic to assume that an investment of $30 million would be needed were Bill C-343 to pass. Thirty million dollars a year to encourage victims' families is a very small amount of money.

The Employment Insurance program is adequately funded by workers and employers to allow families afflicted by such a traumatic event to receive benefits. The government is not actually investing anything in employment insurance.

Since I have been working on this project, I have received messages of support from ordinary people and from civil society. It is clear that this initiative touches people and means something to them. A number of citizen efforts have emerged from the solidarity observed among these families. For example, in 2004, Quebec families affected by these tragedies came together to create the Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinées ou Disparues, a Quebec organization that helps the families of victims.

Right from the start, the AFPAD has supported our bill enthusiastically, because it includes most of their demands. In fact, I would like to express my thanks to its president, Mr. Michel Laroche, for his cooperation on this issue. Their unrelenting efforts to support families have allowed members of the Association to realize that families must be able to come through their ordeal without financial worries.

AFPAD members actually met with the Conservative caucus in 2007. They expressed their total support for the bill. I hope that they intend to keep their promise three years later.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, of which Ms. Arlène Gaudreault is President, is another example of aid groups that were set up out of solidarity for victims and their families. I want to thank her for her devotion and hard work.

In closing, I sincerely believe that these measures will provide indispensable support for victims' families who are currently going through a very difficult period without any financial support. I got involved in politics to bring about change, and I hope that my colleagues will be as touched as I am by what the families of these victims are going through now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good morning, everyone. I would like to call this meeting to order. This is meeting 31 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Just prior to beginning our orders of the day, I would like to ask the committee if we could just very quickly approve a motion, which would enable us to bring our budget for this bill forward and to complete it. So could I have someone move the motion that's before you?

Madam Folco.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

Then pursuant to orders of reference of Wednesday, April 28, we are looking at Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).

We will begin the first half hour with the sponsor of the bill, Madame Bonsant.

Welcome. We'd like to ask you to introduce your bill, and then we'll just have one short round of questions and answers. Then we'll continue and introduce the rest of the witnesses who are here.

If you want to begin, Madame Bonsant, with a 10-minute introduction, then we'll ask you some questions. Thank you.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-343.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Our committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days in relation to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I should mention that in the absence of Madame Hoeppner, I chaired, and therefore there was no Conservative member, but Mr. Komarnicki represented the Conservative side of this committee for the meeting.

Here is what we discussed. First of all, with regard to Bill C-343, as you may know, the bill has to come back to the House on November 5, so we are pretty well late with Bill C-343. So we are suggesting that Bill C-343 be discussed on November 4, but then there's a break week and then it would be discussed again on the 16th, which already makes us late. So if we as a full committee accept that we will continue and finish Bill C-343 on November 16, that would mean we would have to ask the House to accept an extension. According to the clerk--and many of us have gone through this--that means it would have to be presented to the House and there would be an individual vote on the extension.

When we discussed it at the small committee this morning, several members made it clear that extensions have been accorded many times with very few, if any, problems. So the members of the committee felt that asking for an extension would cause no problem at all.

So the clerk has now written a text, which I'm submitting now to the committee.

Before I go on about this extension, let me go on to the next part of our discussion, which is what will happen on the motions.

If all goes well, just to backtrack, we'll discuss Bill C-343 on November 4 and 16. We would then move on to Michael Savage's motion on the long-form census on November 16, and that would continue on the 18th.

For November 23, there are three motions in front of you. They had question marks because they were subject to discussion. The steering committee decided we would take them in a different order. First of all, we would do the adoption study because it's been on for quite some time. That would be number one. That would be followed by Mr. Lessard's motion on the employment insurance board of referees. He thinks it would take two or possibly three days. That would be followed by Mr. Tony Martin's motion on disability-related barriers. We decided we would do them in that order, but we did not give specific dates to these, although we are suggesting they be taken in that order because there will be a number of private members' bills and possibly even a government bill that might come in. Of course they get priority.

So we're suggesting to the full committee an order for the motions and we're suggesting that the dates for these motions be accepted as they come up, given the number of private members' bills.

I was checking just a few minutes ago, and I can tell you that coming from the Liberal Party there are possibly five or six private members' bills that will be coming up in the near future that will have to be discussed here in this particular committee. There may be more private members' bills that I'm not aware of coming from the other parties. So that is it.

So the first thing I am submitting to this committee as a report, on which I need agreement, is the request for an extension for Bill C-343. The clerk has written a draft, which I will read out. I will read it out in English, and obviously the translation will be available.

Report of the subcommittee. It was agreed (1) that a report be adopted and presented to the House asking for an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-343; (2) that Bill C-343 be taken up on November 4, and November 16, as I mentioned; (3) that the business of the committee be conducted in the following order: one, motion of Mr. Casson on the adoption study; followed by, two, the motion by Mr. Lessard, employment insurance board of referees; and after that, three, the motion by Mr. Martin, disability-related barriers. These studies will be conducted without any limitation in terms of number of meetings, provided that time will be made for any private member's bill referred to the committee, and the study under consideration at that time will be suspended for the study of the bill.

So that is what I would like to submit to this committee. If you agree to that, the next step will be for the clerk to write out a submission to the House, which will be tabled by the chair of this committee. Then it will go its regular way so that we can have a 30-day delay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, this government is introducing a bill that I have begun referring to as a microwave bill. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security should have been studying this bill long ago, but the Prime Minister decided to abusively prorogue Parliament in December 2009.

In fact, because of the Prime Minister, Bill C-39, introduced on June 15, 2010, is a combination of two bills that died on the order paper, namely Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, introduced in June 2009, and Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, whose short title is Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act.

As usual, we have become accustomed to this government's showy, dramatic titles that are, of course, always accompanied by a circus when they are introduced.

So there is nothing new on the horizon, which is serious. It is serious because peoples' safety should come before political games. Instead of creating a circus and rejecting Bloc bills in bad faith, this government should start thinking about taking real action in terms of public safety.

One of the provisions in this bill would abolish the opportunity for parole after one-sixth of the sentence. Since June 2007, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing that parole after one-sixth of the sentence be eliminated because we feel it undermines the credibility of the justice system. We believe that such an action would restore the public's confidence that has been abused by people like Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones.

On September 14, 2009, we introduced a bill specifically focused on that measure. All victims and the general public unanimously agree on that measure. On two separate occasions we called for the unanimous consent of all parties to pass the bill quickly, so it could be applied immediately to people like Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix. And what did the Conservatives do? Twice—not once, but twice, so no one could say they did not understand at first, but I am sure they must have understood the second time—they refused to pass the Bloc Québécois bill. And that is terrible, given that with this Bill C-39, they have now presented a provision that they could have agreed to in 2007. This provision would have meant that people like Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix would not be entitled to parole after only one-sixth of their sentence is served. But in reality, now we can debate the bill all we want, and people like Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix can apply for parole after only one-sixth of their sentence is served—all because the Conservatives refused to take action quickly when we asked them to.

We will not accept that. Despite the Conservatives' bad faith, we will vote in favour of this bill because we want to study it in committee, since we think it has some interesting points and we feel it is extremely important that more consideration be given to victims. We are prepared to look at this and move it along for the benefit of the public.

We will also vote in favour of this bill because the Bloc Québécois already proposed some of these provisions back in 2007, as I mentioned earlier, including eliminating parole after one-sixth of the sentence is served. There is also the notion of making inmates accountable for their reintegration programs and questioning the virtually automatic statutory release that occurs after an inmate has served two-thirds of the sentence.

At present, in order to keep in custody offenders who are known to be dangerous, but who are due to be automatically released after serving two-thirds of their sentence, a parole officer and the whole team have to make a specific request to have these offenders detained, when they know the offenders will reoffend quickly and violently. I have been a part this process, called a detention, as a parole officer.

It takes a huge analytical effort to show that an inmate who is automatically released after serving two-thirds of his sentence will reoffend violently in very little time. There are very few detentions. They are used only for the most dangerous offenders, and that is unacceptable.

The Bloc has been proposing since 2007 that the government do away with automatic release after an offender has served two-thirds of his sentence. I could give some examples, but I would rather go on.

It is important to provide legislative tools for the people who are working very hard to maintain a balance between public safety and inmate rehabilitation. The mission of Correctional Service Canada and Quebec's correctional service is to maintain a balance between public safety and rehabilitation, which is hard work.

We must not lose sight of a very important point: rehabilitation is the key to public safety. If we introduce a system where public safety equals repression, we are going to find ourselves in a society where safety is seriously challenged. When we talk about rehabilitation and prevention, we are talking about public safety.

Unlike what certain demagogues say, prisons and penitentiaries are not some kind of club med. When people go to prison, they enter what we call crime school. People who have committed more or less serious crimes and who have more or less led a life of crime end up in prison and will develop new skills, make contacts and learn ways of doing things that make them more effective criminals.

If they go to prison for drug trafficking or another offence, they will get even better at committing crimes, hence the need for rehabilitation. The point of rehabilitation is to give tools to criminals to make them less dangerous or not at all dangerous to society. That is a key part of ensuring public safety.

It is important to understand that rehabilitation is key to protecting society, especially since many of these prisoners will be released one day, even those who were sentenced to life in prison. A 25-year-old who is serving a life sentence will be released one day, if he is rehabilitated. Sometimes, a prisoner will receive 10 or 15 years, and after going through the correctional system is just as dangerous or less dangerous. All of these people will get out one day, which is why rehabilitation is so important.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not understand that word. In fact, they simply do not believe in rehabilitation because they think that repressive incarceration is the answer. Incarceration is the most serious consequence for a criminal offence in Canada.

Incarceration is punishment in itself. Unfortunately, what this government does not understand is that there is a difference between “consequence” and “punishment”. When our children misbehave, there are consequences and rewards, but incarceration in and of itself is punishment and consequence. What more do we want? Why make incarceration even more repressive since being incarcerated is a consequence and punishment in itself? Applying revenge mentality to the law has to stop. The law is there to create justice and fairness and to make society safer.

This bill goes against the current mission of the CSC, which seeks to protect society by assessing the risk posed by inmates and encouraging them to take part in programs. We all agree that society must be protected, but the government is twisting this ideal to insidiously change the CSC's mandate through this bill. It is not very clear. We do not really know where the government is going with this.

I invite all hon. members to look more closely at this attempt to change the mandate that tries to achieve a balance between rehabilitation and protecting society from the perspective that rehabilitation equals protecting society.

As I was saying, the longer people remain incarcerated, the worse things get, but some people do not understand that. In less serious cases, people should be able to benefit from rehabilitation because, in any event, these individuals are assessed at every stage. The correctional plan is updated regularly, after three months, six months, a year. When these people appear before the board, their file is reviewed again. They are monitored. When they are released, because they are eligible or rehabilitated, they are monitored on the outside by Correctional Services. They have a meeting once a week, either at home, at work or at CSC offices. They are monitored closely until the end of their sentence. I think Correctional Services does good work.

However, it needs to be recognized that certain individuals cannot really be rehabilitated, such as those with psychiatric or psychological conditions. In my personal practice I met some who, unfortunately, could never be released because they are too dangerous. We must then ask ourselves if those people should be incarcerated in a prison. Should they not be incarcerated in a psychiatric institute or hospital? Unfortunately, the bill does not really answer this question. What do we do with very dangerous people who have serious psychiatric issues and who cannot be rehabilitated in the community?

Another important point about this bill concerns the place of victims in the correctional system and their right to be involved in parole hearings. There is also the issue of authorizing the correctional services and the National Parole Board to share information with victims. It is fundamental, not only to the healing process, but also to feel safe as a person who was victimized by another person, to have certain information about the offender, such as where they are, what they are doing, and to know if you will run into them while grocery shopping or at the corner store. It is important to have certain information. However, I wonder—and we can take an in-depth look at this in committee—how much information should be given? What information is relevant? I do not really have an answer to that. The committee will surely enlighten us on that issue.

I really hope victims can have access to information. But what kind of information are we prepared to have? The information should pertain to these people's safety and the healing process.

Even though the Corrections and Conditional Release Act clearly recognizes the interests of victims of crime and the role they can play in the corrections and conditional release process, victims and victims' rights advocates told us that many aspects of the current system made no sense and that victims were dissatisfied. These people will be able to give us some further clarification in committee.

The government tells us that victims have an important role to play. I am trying to understand what the Conservatives have done for victims since they came to power. There was the famous bill that was introduced at one point and then dropped off the radar. It seemed to be designed to give the police tools to fight cyberpedophilia and child pornography. We do not hear anything about it anymore.

The former ombudsman for victims of crime, Mr. Sullivan, was unceremoniously dumped. In mid-August, three and a half months later, he noted in a letter to the minister that the government had found money to expand the prisons yet was cutting funding for victims programs. He also came to see us in committee and told us that this government's actions were all about criminals and that the government was doing very little, if anything, for victims.

This year, the budget for the ombudsman's office will increase by barely 1.08%, and grants and contributions for the victims of crime initiative will decrease from 41% to 34%. Meanwhile, the government is talking about boosting funding for incarceration by several million dollars to build new prisons or expand or renovate prison wings. Mr. Sullivan was right: this government is all about getting tough on crime, but it thinks that by focusing on criminals or increasing sentences, it will solve victims' problems. Unfortunately, that is not what the ombudsman for victims of crime and the victims themselves are saying.

Furthermore, when the government prorogued the House, it killed two bills supported by Canada's police chiefs and the former victims of crime ombudsman, specifically, legislation that would have facilitated online investigations, as I said earlier, especially regarding crimes of a sexual nature against children. I asked Mr. Sullivan what he thought and he told me something rather extraordinary. He told me that if he were prime minister, the Internet legislation would be his top priority and it would be the first bill he would bring forward. Indeed, cyber-pedophilia and child pornography are rampant on the Internet.

A press release I saw on the Internet on October 3 stated that the government is tackling cybercrime. However, after reading the article, I realized that it did not include anything about the Internet legislation.

To close, I would like to mention Bill C-343, introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. The bill will help victims of crime, particularly by allowing them to be absent from work and receive an income while dealing with their grief or trauma. The bill was introduced in this House but unfortunately, the government voted against it. I thank the other parties for supporting the bill. I truly hope that when it comes back before the House, we will win our case, because it is important for victims.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'll just comment for the record so we know the context. We obviously have Bill C-31, which is a government bill that we need to look at. There is also Bill C-343, a private member's bill. I believe our deadline for when that has to be reported back to the House is November 5, so just keep that in mind, in context.

Mr. Savage, before we go to the other comments, were you thinking you wanted to look at this once all the other things were finished? What was your timeline?

Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-343 under private members' business.