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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time speaking on this type of legislation. Prior to being called Bill S-6, it was Bill C-36 before the prorogation. I would like to talk about the process by which we get here and the tough on crime agenda that many of us on both sides of the House have referred to. There has been so much time spent on the issue of tackling violent crime, yet we have been using this, for the most part, as a divisive political wedge between many sections of the country, many sectors of society, and unfortunately a lot of what I would call the mature debate has been lost as a result of that.

Yes, I support sending the bill to committee at this point and I support the fact that we are able to carry on a mature conversation about people who are convicted for life for serious crimes. Even the bill's title, the serious time for the most serious crime act, in and of itself almost sounds like an advertising slogan. I feel as though we are trying to sell something through the Shopping Channel, pardon the vernacular, but nonetheless, members get the idea. This is how revved up this debate has become, to a point of wedge issues, fear tactics and all around misinformation by both sides because both sides have been so vehemently opposed to the other that we forget the fact that we at some point have to listen to the other side as to which part of the debate is germane to the situation and which part of the debate matters the most.

I want to provide a few more notes on that issue, but before I return to that, I want to talk about the background on the bill and the analysis of Bill S-6. As I mentioned earlier, it was introduced in the House as a Senate bill, but it was before us a while back as Bill C-36. It passed through the House with support of the parties here and was debated at second reading into the Senate when we faced the prorogation. I am going to leave the prorogation matter out of it because we have debated that ad nauseam. I do not think it was a fair thing to do, but nonetheless, we will leave it at that.

Section 745.6 is the clause that was devised and included in the Criminal Code in the wake of Parliament's decision to abolish the death penalty in 1976. Capital punishment was replaced with mandatory life terms of imprisonment for first degree and second degree murder. The faint hope clause is essentially the vernacular we use for what is being debated here today. That clause was seen as a necessary safeguard to a sentencing regime without capital punishment, to encourage the rehabilitation. Therein lies the other aspect of this debate that is so very important to this, which is rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, in terms of the idea and the concept and the methods by which we rehabilitate people who are convicted, that argument seems to be lost and I do not think we have had the full argument on this particular issue for quite some time. Since 2006, since crime has become far more at the forefront of the agenda than in the past, that part of it really has been left out. We have focused a lot on the crime itself. We have focused a lot on the victims, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am certainly in favour of that, and if I were not in favour of it, I would not be supporting that the bill go to committee. Nonetheless, we also have to have that mature debate that I spoke of that sometimes escapes us about the idea of rehabilitation and how this country deals with rehabilitation for people who get parole and go back onto the streets.

Are they rehabilitated? Are they a threat to society? Do we believe that our system allows these people to be rehabilitated enough? Do we raise the bar by which these people can be brought back into society? Does our penal system believe that these people are rehabilitated? Would our penal system benefit by focusing more on the more violent criminals who cannot be rehabilitated? These questions are the reason we should have a more fulsome debate on this issue.

I spoke of section 745.6. As I mentioned, the section goes back to 1976. Amendments by the Chrétien government in 1997 changed this particular section so as to require judicial review and the unanimous consent of 12 jurors as a prerequisite to the National Parole Board application process. Even at that point it was decided that the faint hope clause was a serious issue.

Several stories in the media referred to the faint hope clause as being used by people convicted of first degree murder and being released back into the public. There are several sides to every story, but on the surface this shocked people. There is shock value to this. Unfortunately, there are groups that use the issue of rehabilitation, or the lack thereof, for shock value in the media. It was addressed at that time in some of the stories that came out.

The most famous instance where a prisoner was granted parole through a faint hope application was the situation with Colin Thatcher, who was convicted of killing his ex-wife in 1984. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. Mr. Thatcher was granted full parole in 2006.

That is just one example of how we have sensationalized many of the issues involved in first degree murder, dangerous offenders, and rehabilitation.

In the international context of rehabilitation and in the context of how we deal with this issue, are we really having an honest debate?

I spoke earlier about the politics of the issue and I would like to return to that for just a moment.

A key benefit of being involved in the political system is our ability to rely upon expert advice. We listen to the experts and we find out how they deal with a particular situation. As politicians, we become generals. All issues come before us. I have issues to deal with. I just had a major flood in my riding and I am dealing with disaster relief. I dealt with employment insurance this morning and now I am dealing with serious crime. One of the benefits is that we have the resources to get as much material as we can in a very short period of time.

We can also hear the stories of serious crime that affects everybody: yes, the victims, and yes, the people involved in the penal system who have to rehabilitate serious offenders while at the same time looking after them.

Societies outside the penal system know quite a bit about this issue, so we should look to them for advice. Victims of crime groups generally support the elimination of the faint hope provision. Some other groups do not, and their opinions mean quite a bit to us.

The John Howard Society opposes the legislation. It believes the faint hope clause as it currently exists encourages prisoners to reform their behaviour in the hope of being granted early parole. The Elizabeth Fry Society opposes this bill and believes there are already sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure only offenders unlikely to pose a threat to public safety are paroled based on faint hope applications. The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, as well as the Quebec bar, oppose this legislation. To varying degrees, prison guards believe the faint hope clause makes their job safer.

These are just a few snippets of the stakeholder reaction to this. There are many groups out there that believe we should get rid of this. Victims of crime obviously believe people who are the most serious offenders should be doing the time, not going through the faint hope process.

I would also like to mention what my colleagues noted earlier about the fact that as far as the international context is concerned, and I certainly have the notes here as well, 28.4 years is the average time spent in jail for a Canadian convicted of first degree murder in this country. At 28.4 years, that is certainly on the high end of the scale.

In other countries, I think Sweden, Belgium and other European countries were mentioned, it was close to half that length of time. In the United States of America, it was also less, and several other countries followed suit.

There is certainly quite a bit of time spent here, on average 28.4 years. It still goes back to the situation of the faint hope clause. Do we provide a faint hope clause for people who have been convicted of first degree murder?

I can honestly say that in this particular situation I do support this bill going ahead to committee because I think it deserves further study. However, I also believe that the faint hope clause may provide an incentive for people who are not rehabilitated to go back into society and this is going to cause problems. It is something that concerns me greatly and it greatly concerns people I represent.

I do believe that in this particular situation one of the issues we should be giving more emphasis to is the idea of rehabilitation. I implore the House not to shift back into an example where we are using this as a poster or a sound bite for a political issue of the day, which unfortunately happens too often.

If we start using labels in this particular situation, we could be denying the public an honest debate on rehabilitation, which I feel needs to be debated in this country. I mean that in a general sense, not just for those who are convicted of doing the most serious crime.

I would suggest to the House that we take this issue and give it the reading and study it deserves, especially in regard to rehabilitation.

In this particular situation, we can look at examples of people who cannot be rehabilitated. A small number of those, we know, do receive a favourable hearing with respect to the faint hope clause. Even though the number is not great, we have to look at that as well. This was talked about in the campaign in 2006, to get rid of the faint hope clause. This just might be the way to go. However, I feel deeply within my heart that we have not fully debated how rehabilitation is handled in this country.

I thank the Speaker and the House for this time to present a few of my thoughts.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill S-6.

We already know the basics about this bill after hearing the speeches of the Conservative and NDP members, but I would still like to give a brief history before going into more detail.

We know that Bill S-6 was introduced prior to prorogation as Bill C-36, which had passed through the House with Liberal support. At the time of prorogation, the bill was being debated at second reading in the Senate. Therefore, when the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House in late December 2009, he did so knowing that his decision would kill this bill. That is the first point that needs to be made.

The second point that needs to be made is that Bill S-6 will amend section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. That section is the so-called faint hope clause, which offers offenders sentenced to life imprisonment a chance to apply, at the 15-year mark in their sentence, for an earlier parole eligibility date . Bill S-6 would amend section 745.6 of the Criminal Code in such a way that offenders who commit murder on or after the date that this proposed legislation comes into force will no longer be eligible to apply for early parole.

However, a point that the government seems not to want to make known to the public is that this legislation would not change anything for offenders currently serving a life sentence in prison. They will still benefit from the faint hope clause as it now exists.

Therefore, even if the bill was adopted, proclaimed, and enacted today, it would apply only to those sentenced today or thereafter to life without parole. That means the practical effect of this legislation will not be seen for about 15 years. Under the existing faint hope clause, people sentenced to life without possibility of parole for 25 years could apply for early parole at the 15-year mark.

In fact, the practical impact of this legislation, if it becomes law, will be seen only in 15 years. That is the second point I wish to make.

The third point that I wish to make is that the existing section 745.6 of the Criminal Code was included in the Criminal Code in the wake of Parliament's 1976 decision to abolish the death penalty. Capital punishment at that time was replaced with mandatory life imprisonment for first- and second-degree murder. The faint hope clause was seen as a necessary means of encouraging rehabilitation in a sentencing regime without capital punishment.

I would like to remind anyone who is listening to this debate that rehabilitation is one of the core principles of our criminal justice system. Deterrence is one; rehabilitation is another. That is important and people should remember it.

The section was amended in 1997 by the Chrétien government to require judicial review and the unanimous consent of 12 jurors as a prerequisite to the National Parole Board application process. In 1997, the section was also tightened so as to remove the right to apply from anyone convicted on more than one count of murder. In fact, as of 1997, with the amendments brought to the faint hope clause, someone convicted of more than one count of murder is no longer eligible for the faint hope clause. That is the third point.

Fourth, during the 2005-06 election campaign, the Conservatives actually pledged to repeal the faint hope clause.

The election took place on January 23, 2006. We are now closing in on January 23, 2011. That means the government has definitely been in place for four years. Counting every month from January 2006 to now demonstrates that this government has been in place for four years and nine months. It is only now moving on this bill.

Who knows? The Prime Minister may decide to prorogue again and kill this legislation yet again, as he has done with every single one of the criminal justice bills that were on the order paper, in debate at second reading, before a committee, at report stage, or were at third reading in the House or the Senate. Each time the Prime Minister prorogued the House, he knew he was going to kill every one of those bills.

When the Prime Minister brought Parliament back, he had the opportunity to reinstate those bills at the stage they were in at the time of progrogation. He chose to do this with a number of the bills, but not with all the criminal justice bills. That is another point I would like people to understand.

Perhaps the most famous instance of a prisoner's being granted parole through a faint hope application is the case of Colin Thatcher, who was convicted of killing his ex-wife in 1984. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. In 2006, Mr. Thatcher was granted full parole under the faint hope clause.

On June 28, 2010, the Senate adopted the bill, on division, with no amendments.

These are just a few of the points I wish to make before going to the substance of the bill. I thought it important to raise these points, because they provide the context for the bill.

We know that the repeal of the faint hope clause is something that victims of crime and their families have been calling for for a long time. No one wants someone who has been convicted of a serious crime to get out of serving a long prison term.

When we were in power, we tightened up the faint hope clause to ensure that anyone who committed more than one murder was not eligible. We believe that there needs to be a balance between rehabilitation and punishment in the correctional system. We would like this government to put more emphasis on rehabilitation.

We continue to support the fundamental principles behind the faint hope clause, in particular because they encourage good behaviour and encourage prisoners to work toward rehabilitation. However, since this provision can have some serious repercussions for victims of serious crimes and their families, it is important that we examine it in light of recent data and statistics.

We all know this is a government that is not interested in scientific data or evidence. Witness the decision to eliminate the long form mandatory census. However, Correctional Services, through its appearances before House committees and its annual reports, provides statistics, some of which I will be using in my speech.

As I mentioned, Bill S-6 was first introduced before prorogation. At the time, it was known as Bill C-36, which had passed through the House with Liberal support and was being debated at second reading in the Senate. As I already mentioned, it was the government's decision to prorogue the House that caused the delays for all of its criminal justice bills.

During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives promised to repeal the provisions, but they did not fulfill that promise and they are trying to do so now, four years and nine months after their election and their promise. Way to go. It is four years and nine months later, but congratulations, anyway.

I already talked about the fact that in 1997, a previous Liberal government amended the provision to require judicial review and the unanimous consent of 12 jurors as a prerequisite to the National Parole Board application process. I have already mentioned that, at that time, the provisions were also tightened so as to prohibit anyone convicted on more than one count of murder from applying for early parole. I think that is a very important point.

Our criminal justice system has a number of different purposes. Yes, punishment is a large part of the system, but so too is rehabilitation, crime prevention, and victims programs. This bill, if not all Conservative justice bills, does not address these other important aspects of criminal law, and these other important aspects are key to ensuring public safety. They are key to ensuring that each and every member of our society remains safe.

While Liberals believe in appropriate sentences for crimes, we, unlike the Conservatives, understand that appropriate sentencing is only one piece of a much larger puzzle, and that this larger puzzle includes crime prevention. If we are not willing to attack crime prevention at the entry point, then what comes out at the end will not change. Studies have shown time and again that tougher sentences, locking someone up and throwing away the key, do not create or enhance public safety.

One has only to look at the United States, where states like California instituted “three strikes and you're out” laws. Crime rates in these states went through the roof. Meanwhile, prisons became breeding grounds for more serious criminality than the individuals had been convicted of, instead of becoming a milieux that offered some inmates a chance to rehabilitate themselves.

The Conservative government, by tackling only one piece of the criminal justice system, that is, the sentencing portion, and not working to enhance the crime prevention portion of criminal justice, is in fact endangering the safety of our communities. The Conservatives have slashed spending to programs that stop crime before it happens. I am not making this up. Government department reports have clearly demonstrated this.

During the last full year the Liberals were in power, the National Crime Prevention Centre supported 509 projects in 261 communities for a total investment of $56.9 million. At present, the Conservatives have cut over half of that spending, cutting a little more every year. In fact, 285 of those projects are no longer being financed and the total spending for that program is only $19.27 million.

Four years and 9 months ago, under the Liberals, the National Crime Prevention Centre supported 509 projects in 261 communities for a total investment of $56.9 million. Today, 285 of those projects are no longer being financed, and the total financing under the National Crime Prevention Centre is only $19.27 million. That is a big cut.

As for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years, but who might be eligible under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, here are the numbers.

In 2007, 921 inmates were eligible for hearings under the faint hope clause. That figure comes from Correctional Service of Canada. If the Conservatives want to say that it is being made up, then it is their own department that is making it up.

The other piece of information that Correctional Service of Canada provided us is that of the 921 inmates eligible for hearings under the faint hope clause, only 169 actually had hearings and, of the 169, 125 individuals were released on parole. Of the 125 inmates released on early parole under the faint hope clause, and that is out of 921 inmates, 15 were returned to custody.

I will provide some information on those 15 inmates. The vast majority of individuals returned to society without incident, which means that 110 inmates convicted of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole before 25 years but who were eligible under the faint hope clause in 2007, had a hearing, successfully pled their case and who were released on early parole, are still out there with no incidents, meaning that they have not violated the conditions of their parole, that they are integrating into society and that they are not a risk to the public. Fifteen were returned to custody.

I will provide a bit of information, which again comes from Correctional Service of Canada. on those who were returned because they violated the conditions of their early release.

Instead of going to the stakeholders, I will just say that, from what I understand, the groups that support victims and families of victims are strongly in support of this legislation. The Liberals already supported it when it first came through the House and we will be supporting it l again going to committee. We again want to hear from all of the different stakeholders, particularly the association of prison guards who work in the federal penitentiaries, as to what their view of the amendment through this legislation would be.

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

Madam Speaker, as I have been listening to the debate today, I must admit I have been suffering from some real pangs of frustration. This is a terrible bill; it really is as simple as that. The background behind it and the role the Conservative Party has played, and the Reform and Alliance parties before it, and I cannot put it any other way, in using the faint hope clause as a way of stirring up fears among the families of the victims of murderers in this country is, quite frankly, shameful.

As we have already heard from the Liberal member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe this bill has sat around for quite some time. It is a typical example of a government and a political party that claims to be concerned about victims and sees its members as self-appointed champions of victims, but when it came to prorogation last December, the Prime Minister had no hesitation and, I believe, gave absolutely no consideration to the various crime bills that were going to go down and to the delay it was going to cause in dealing with issues.

I am also frustrated because the way this bill has been handled by the Conservatives is a classic example of the government refusing, as we saw most recently with the census, to deal with facts and reality if it at all clashed with the government's ideology.

What I am referring to is that evidence came forward from Correctional Service Canada on this particular bill and on the whole issue of the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code. As a result of questions from me and the Bloc, further evidence was required. The department prepared a report in answer to those questions. It sat on the desk of the minister of public safety at that time until after we completed clause-by-clause study. The evidence that came out in that report was quite damaging to the government cause and it was never heard by the committee. The bill came back to this House without that evidence having been considered.

The evidence was clear that this bill is not going to do anything in terms of dealing with the one problem that exists with the faint hope clause, and that is how we treat the victims in the process. That is the only issue that has some validity here. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is an issue that can be dealt with in any serious way by legislation.

There are practical solutions. One of them is for the government party to stop the fearmongering around this issue, to tell the victims how the system actually works, how it has worked for almost 35 years, what the effect is on the murderers who are incarcerated, and what impact it is going to have on them. There are ways of doing that. The Conservatives have not done any of that in the five years they have been in power. There are ways of softening it.

It is important to put this into context. The faint hope clause came into effect when we did away with the death penalty. At that time we looked at what the penalties were going to be for first degree murder. Most of my comments today are going to be with regard to first degree murder.

When we investigated it at that time and looked around the globe to our normal allies, that is, societies that are close to what Canadian society is, the average maximum sentence for first degree murder in those other countries was 15 years. We did not do 15 years; we did 25 years.

We then said, “Okay, we trust our judges and our juries”. This bill is really an insult to both of them. We trust our judges and our juries to look at individual cases, to say that 25 years is too much, that the person is rehabilitated and will not be a risk to society and the recommendation is to allow the person to apply for parole earlier than 25 years. That is what the faint hope clause did at that time.

It was in consideration of looking around the globe at societies similar to ours, and those societies have lower murder rates than ours and some of them have 15 years as a maximum for eligibility for parole, and in a good number of them, it is 12 years. That is still the case today. In fact, in that period of time, most of those countries have reduced it from 15 years to 10 or 12 years. That is the factual situation. That is how it works elsewhere, and it is how it works here in the sense that the clause does work.

The parliamentary secretary stood up in the House today and put forward figures and facts that are grossly misleading.

Here is a fact that every Canadian should know. This is a fact that the Conservative government should be passing out to every Canadian. The average time that someone who commits first degree murder in Canada is incarcerated is 28.5 years, not 25, not 15, before the person can first apply, and most of them do not, but it is 28.5 years. That is the longest incarceration period in the world. That is the situation in Canada today.

These facts came out during the course of hearings on Bill C-36, which preceded this bill but is identical. We are dealing with a problem that does not exist in terms of the years. I repeat that 28.5 years is the average incarceration period in Canada and it is the longest in the world, longer than that in any of the United States. That is the so-called problem we are dealing with.

I made earlier reference to the request that I and the Bloc made for more information. We did get it. These were the facts, and I want to read them into Hansard today.

I have a letter from Don Head, the commissioner of Correctional Services Canada. None of this evidence got into the record at committee before the bill was returned to the House. I wanted to know the factual situation. I would have thought the government would have wanted to know this before it drafted the legislation. Here are the facts of the situation in Canada.

For those people sentenced to first degree murder, there is no eligibility for parole under 25 years. As of October 18, 2009, there were 622 people in custody who were in that category. Of those 622 people, 174 applied for and received a decision from our courts as to whether they could apply for an earlier parole. Thirty of them were rejected; 144 were granted the opportunity to apply.

On the first application, 140 were granted the opportunity to apply--and let us consider this carefully--by a jury composed of people who live in the region where the crime was committed. That is how the system works. This was not one of those, as the Conservatives like to think, elitist juries or an elitist judge totally disengaged from the community. They are people who live in the community. They are given all the evidence as to the nature of the crime. They are told all the facts about the individual's record while incarcerated. It is an in-depth process. It is the jury, not the judge, that ultimately makes the decision as to whether an individual is going to be granted a reduction in the number of years he or she has to serve before being able to apply for parole. Even then, of the 144 cases where the individuals were granted the right to reply, those individuals still had to go through the parole process and 10 of them were not granted parole.

If we look at it, and we heard some of this from the Bloc, of those who were granted parole, there was only one serious crime that had been committed. It was an armed robbery, but they were not able to give us information. We do not know what kind of weapon was involved, whether it was a gun or not. We do not know if there were any injuries that came out of it. There was only one serious crime, and we do not know how serious it was.

There were a number of people, 14 in total including that one, who were sent back to prison. The other 13 were all because of breaches of their conditions, usually because of abuse of drugs or alcohol. In some cases the abuse was as simple as changing their place of residence and not telling the person where they had moved to, but they continued to comply with the rest of the provisions. It is a very rigid supervision that is done through that period of time, for life.

Perhaps I should stop at that point. We have to remember that the sentence is a life sentence. Even when they get out in these circumstances, they are still serving life sentences and their parole can be pulled at any time, up to death. The supervision goes on for the rest of their lives.

Again as we heard, three were deported, eleven died, and one is missing. They did not know where one person was. There seems to be some indication that they thought the person had left the country, but that was the situation as of a year ago.

What we get from the government is that we have a major problem here and it is going to toughen this up. I do not know how it would toughen it up. What does it want? Does it want the average time spent in custody to be 35 or 40 years? Does it want to bring back the death penalty?

In fact, the only way we are actually going to deal with the one problem that is here, and that is how victims are treated by the system as the process happens, is by bringing back the death penalty and killing the murderer. The problem that exists is that we have people who are told that the person who committed the murder against a person's friend or family member has applied for eligibility for early parole. There is no one who was sitting on that committee who did not understand the implications for the emotional and psychological well-being of the victims' families. We understood that. That is not an issue here. We understand there is a problem in this area, but the solution that is being envisioned by this bill is not an answer to that problem.

I have been on the justice committee for more than six years and a number of different pieces of legislation have come forward. We have heard of the problems that victims have in dealing with the criminal justice system. We have seen occasions where there are some systems in place, usually regional ones, across the country that go quite some distance to support victims and their role in dealing with the criminal justice system, whether as witnesses or, as in cases like this, where they are coming in as family members or friends of the victim of the crime.

We know there are ways of lessening the burden. One of them clearly in this situation is education. So let us have the Conservative Party of Canada stop running around the country fearmongering on this issue. Let us have it simply put out the correct information.

Less than 25% of the people who are incarcerated with no eligibility for parole for 25 years apply. That is the first figure that victims and victims' families should know.

The second one they should be aware of is that the process itself takes a long time. One of the facts I have not given that came out, and this one is not nearly as clear, is that most of the applications do not come at the 15 year mark. Most of them start at around the 17 to 18 year mark.

Of the 622, we have only had one case where somebody applied immediately after the 15 years and was granted the right to apply, and in fact was granted parole. He actually came as a witness and testified before the committee. He is the only one. He was granted parole at about the 17.5 year mark. That is a fact that people should know; there was only one.

The vast majority, around 22%, of people apply on average at 17 or 17.5 years. The process itself takes more than two years. That is how long it is taking at this point. A number of them do not get out. They are rejected. Of the people who actually get out and who are released back into the community, the best figure we could see was at somewhere from 19 or 19.5 years up to 23 years. That is the range for people who are released.

When we think about the number of people who are getting out, the 20% to 22%, I want to go back to the 28.5 years. They are included in that group. The balance of somewhere between 75% and 80% of the people who are incarcerated in Canada for first degree murder spend well over 30 years in custody. A number of them, and this was an interesting fact that came out from the John Howard Society, after 25 years, are pressed by authorities to apply, and they will not do it. Some never do apply. They die in custody.

Those are the kinds of facts that victims who survived the loss of a loved one should be aware of. The education part is something that should be done. It has nothing to do with legislation. I posited, as we were going through this process, the possibility of one amendment, which would be that we do not tell the victims in the initial stage that an application has come forward, because as I already indicated and I think we heard it from a member from the Bloc, the way the process works is that when the initial application is put forward, it goes before a judge alone. The judge then takes a look at it and decides whether the application has any merit at all. As has already been said, there were 174 of them and 30 of them were rejected at that point.

It seems to me that if we said to the victims that we would let that initial phase go forward before telling them because we want to spare them from that, because they do not have the opportunity to make representations at that time, that is one of the solutions. I must admit I got both positive and negative responses from victims groups on that.

I want to make a final point with what we could be doing with victims, which is to provide them with a support system that is meaningful. Oftentimes, if there is an adjournment of the proceedings, they are not told. They travel to wherever the hearing is, if they are not in the immediate community. They are compensated for that eventually, but they are not told, so they oftentimes have to go repeatedly. Every time they go for a hearing, the memory is jogged and they suffer those emotions.

That is another area where we should be doing much more, both with our prosecutors and with the financial support we provide. The financial support is really quite limited and we should be doing more. Those would be good practical solutions. There is no legislation required. This is something the government could have done five years ago, and of course it did not, because it wanted to play politics with it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill and give a few comments.

In response to the parliamentary secretary's speech, I have said that the official opposition, the Liberal Party, will be supporting sending this bill to committee for examination to see how it might be improved upon or at least made clearer.

However, because this is Parliament, we ought to debate or bring out subjects that perhaps are not top of mind for every Canadian and every parliamentarian, and that is the whole regime of how we treat prisoners and how we treat convicted murderers in Canada today versus the rest of the world compared to other periods before the death penalty was abolished, and how we might be treating convicted murderers in the future if this bill continues.

The first crime that I would like to speak to is the fact that this bill, Bill S-6, had a predecessor, which was Bill C-36. It went through the usual steps of being introduced, particularly with the present government in control, with multiple national news conferences to inform, excite and educate the Canadian public of the fact that help was on the way with respect to convicted murderers. They would not be given the chance of getting out and that the government would do something. However, it did not. Four years and eight months after it was first elected--and I will say that P word again--we were prorogued and the bill did not get passed.

This is the first crime we have to speak to from a justice point of view. The government must be held to account for not bringing forward good legislation that people were looking forward to getting at, improving perhaps and getting on the books.

This seems to be justice week. One of the topics is car theft. No one in this House is going to say that car theft is good. Another topic is white collar crime. No one in this House is going to say that white collar crime is good. Another topic is the security of the public by not having convicted murderers prematurely out on the street. No one is going to say that is not a good thing. However, all three of these subjects have not been addressed on a timely basis by the government and it is the government's fault because we were prorogued.

Specifically, with respect to the context of convicted murderers, we need to remember that in this country we had executions. I remember my grandfather talking about the last public execution in the province of New Brunswick. My family has been in the legal industry for a long time. I remember my uncle, a provincial court judge, talking about executions. I remember that he was part of a previous generation's set of mind that public executions happened and that executions for serious crimes took place. However, this generation, I believe, if I am speaking to the Canadian public, would not know that political milieu and that philosophical mindset.

The current generation of Canadians, the mainstream of Canadians, would not be amenable to the death penalty. It does not exist. Let us not talk in a vacuum. It is not part of the laws of Canada. It was in fact the law of Canada until it was abolished. However, when the capital punishment debate took place and capital punishment was abolished for murder, the compromise on this point was to institute a faint hope clause, the reason being that capital murders, as they were called then, would quite often end with no chance for parole whatsoever because there might be executions.

In this case, the idea of life meaning life or life meaning 25 years served was met with the idea that there would be no chance of rehabilitation if a person were to be subject to the death penalty, but there might be a chance of rehabilitation, which is very much a pillar of the Criminal Code of Canada, if a person serves up to 25 years without the eligibility for parole.

What the government and the Parliament of the day decided to do was insert the faint hope clause. The faint hope clause in simple terms means that a person convicted of a murder in Canada should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate himself or herself and therefore be returned to the public as a non-threat to the public. Having taken into account the principles of sentencing, rehabilitation, which is incredibly important because we cannot keep everybody who has done something wrong in handcuffs, which seems to be the mentality of the party opposite, must be a cornerstone goal. We also need to have an idea that the person understood and has been remorseful with respect to the crime that has occurred. Proportionality is always the case with respect to crimes and a sentence needs to be proportional to the crime committed.

At that time, the faint hope clause was put in place with many safeguards. My hon. friend went through the history and the details of the faint hope clause regime as it exists now. It should be very clear to parliamentarians and Canadians that the faint hope clause is very faint in achieving, because, first, there is the chief justice who selects the Court of Queen's Bench judge, who then empanels a jury which then determines whether there is a reasonable likelihood of release on parole for the person based on their rehabilitation achievements. It is then sent further. There are all kinds of gates before a person can even be considered for parole.

Before I get into the details of faint hope, I want to ensure that people understand the context of time served for murder convictions. I think we will have a bit of a moral debate at the committee on this, but it is important to understand, right or wrong, how long people serve upon being convicted for murder. The following are some averages. An international comparison that was done in 1999 showed that Canada sat at some 28.4 years served for first degree murder. We might ask ourselves whether we are ahead, behind, serving more or serving less than other countries across the world.

The average in the United States, not surprisingly, is 29 years life sentence without parole, which is slightly more time than us. However, what I found interesting, not being a criminal lawyer with 24 years of experience, and not necessarily comforting and led me to ask many questions about other countries, frankly, is that other countries have much lower years of sentences served for convicted murders. They are New Zealand at 11, Scotland at 11.2, Sweden at 12, Belgium at 12.7 and Australia at 14.8. The United States has 18.5 for life sentence with the eligibility of parole.

As we get into the debate and as we will be sending this legislation to committee, we need to ask ourselves what is so different between Canada and the countries I have mentioned. Do we consider ourselves that different from any other British found Commonwealth like New Zealand and Australia? I do not think we do. Do we consider ourselves on a social level that much different from European countries like Sweden and Belgium? In some ways I do not think we do. We need to examine why their regimes render much lower time served for convicted murderers.

As I said, when the death penalty was abolished in 1976 and replaced with mandatory life terms of imprisonment, the faint hope clause was seen as a necessary safeguard to a sentencing regime without capital punishment to encourage rehabilitation. It was not left there in 1976. It was amended in 1997 by the Chrétien government to require judicial review and the unanimous consent of 12 jurors as a prerequisite to the National Parole Board application process. So further gates or controls were added to the faint hope clause situation.

Like everything in politics, sadly, there is a bit of a slip from reality and importance to what is perceived to be urgent and important. When we go to committee, we would like to know the actual number of convicted murderers sitting in our prisons now. I also think knowing the actual number who have applied and failed would be reassuring to Canadians. Does faint hope mean faint hope in practice as in law? The actual number of people who get out on a faint hope clause in a long process is a very small number.

However, what happens in politics is that the notorious cases get the attention. As I said, it has been four years and eight months since the government brought this forward as a campaign promise. It is something it felt very strongly about but did nothing about it until the introduction of the bill, and it will be over five years before it becomes law.

It has been brewing for some time. I think one of those instances was Colin Thatcher, who was granted parole through the faint hope application. He was convicted of killing his ex-wife in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. He was granted full parole in 2006 and that process certainly brought the faint hope clause aspect to the fore.

As I mentioned, with Bill S-6, having been through the Senate and having had now the second eyes look at it, there can no longer be the argument on the other side that the Liberal dominated Senate upheld the bill. In fact, we have many speeches on record from Conservative senators outlining the same history of the faint hope clause. The bill was sent to the Senate to be dealt with rather than having started it in the House of Commons.

There has been a revolution on the other side. The government now welcomes the Conservative dominated Senate in proposing bills. I do not know if this is a debate for another day, but I guess the other side has concluded that the work of senators and the work of the Senate, in general, is worthy, because we are sitting here discussing a Senate bill. Yet it is a reintroduction of previous House of Commons work in Bill C-36, which died on the order paper in 2009.

There is no doubt that serious crimes deserve serious time and that the desires for victims' groups for retribution must be balanced by a sense of justice toward all Canadians, including those who have committed crime. The statements of the minister and the statement by the parliamentary secretary would indicate that all we should be concerned with are the rights of victims. By implication, they are saying that we have never been concerned about the rights of victims. This is not true.

Victims like people convicted of murder and non-involved citizens of the public are all part of a rubric of public safety and public security. There is not a member of the House who does not believe that our community should be safe and that public safety and public security are the most important thing we do as parliamentarians.

This brings us to the main debate that we will have at committee with respect to the faint hope clause amendments. Is it really in the public's interest to deny convicted murderers of any chance of ever getting out on parole directed by parole officers? Carte blanche we may say yes. I am sure a victim might say yes.

However, as a footnote, many times, through the committee's experience since the time I arrived here, we would be surprised to see the number of victims' families and families of prosecuted persons in the organized crime milieu or in the gun control debates who would say that we should turn the other cheek and ensure that this crime, for instance, does not happen again. This type of violence is very much predicated on items that we believe very strongly on this side, such as early intervention, emphasis on rehabilitation, the idea that someone who commits a crime is someone else's son or daughter. Someone who commits a serious crime is a Canadian person usually brought up in our community somewhere and is deserving of an attempt at least to have he or she meet not only these serious consequences of crime, but have a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community as well.

I would hope that would be the goal of all parliamentarians and I would hope that these tightening provisions on the faint hope clause regime would not deny, even if it is one person, a person who committed a heinous crime but who has been rehabilitated, to get back into the main stream of the community under supervision.

Numerous briefs and calls have been made on the idea that if we have an inmate who knows he or she has no chance whatsoever of getting out of prison, even though he or she has made strides toward rehabilitation, that person might lose hope. Talking about faint hope of getting out, that person then has no hope of getting out and no real desire of keeping the peace and being on good behaviour while in our system. That presents a number of difficulties.

I was a difficult student in school and the nuns in Grade 8 told me that I was difficult and to go out into the lobby and read the encyclopedias, which I did. Therefore, it worked out for me. However, it is a lot more complex in the prison and correction systems in Canada because a difficult inmate sucks up resources that should be used otherwise within the facility. It is not only a matter of resources; it is a matter of attending to the other incarcerated individuals, many of whom will not be there for 25 years, but could benefit from the proper spreading out of the budgets of correction facilities. Therefore, corrections officers and their organizations will be before us to ensure that there is a balance here.

The parliamentary secretary in his remarks did strive for balance. I take him at his word, as a lawyer of some years, that the government is trying for balance. However, the rubber will hit the road at committee when we determine exactly where the balance would be and whether the removal of faint hope would be too far.

The bill itself has three provisions, which my friend went over.

No offender convicted of murder or high treason after the coming into force of the legislation would be eligible for early parole. An important footnote is that people already in the regime would have the rights that accrued from the previous legislation.

There are certain serious crimes. We have no doubt of that. However, we must consider the reasoning behind the introduction of the clause. It is designed to encourage prisoners to reform themselves, as I mentioned, and prison guards will be before us to say that there are some dangers presented by that.

As well, we know there is opposition from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Barreau du Québec, the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society to the bill. We have to listen to the opposition with respect to the bill and why they oppose it. After four or five years, members of the justice committee, and the Conservative side in general, think that all the organizations I mentioned have nothing to say. Clearly if the first question asked of a John Howard Society or a Elizabeth Fry Society representatives is if they believe in greater security for the public, I cannot imagine them saying no. In fact, I can imagine them saying yes, that it is precisely for the greater security and safety of the public that they oppose the bill or have recommendations to amend it.

The provisions of the bill, which would permit early release, are very strenuous as is, and we will see that at committee. We will see it is not an easy wicket to get through to get out under the faint hope clause regime. We will have the exact numbers. We are well served by Statistics Canada, and I do not want to bring up the census debate, and juristat provisions in the Department of Justice working with Statistics Canada. They will be able to give us the updated numbers of persons who are eligible, who have applied and who have succeeded under the regime. I think we will see that this is a very small number of people.

As mentioned, amendments have been made to faint hope along the way. There were restrictions in 1997. It is very fitting in this day and age, when judicial discretion seems to be under attack, that the regime, as it was set up, relies on the wisdom of 12 men or women, Canadian citizens, to determine, at the first instance, whether there will be eligibility. Thankfully, that remains. Under this regime, if successful, a jury will be responsible, on a unanimous basis, as to whether an inmate deserves of early parole. Only following that unanimous decision would a judge decide that the file would be moved to the national Parole Board.

The reasonable prospect provisions, which will remain, would not be changed. It is just a matter of the time limits, the review, the degree of discretion involved that we must look at in committee.

We will support the bill going to committee and I very much look forward to a rigorous debate and I welcome questions.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today in support of the important Criminal Code amendments contained in Bill S-6 that will fulfill the government's platform commitment to repeal the Criminal Code faint hope regime.

As hon. members may be aware, the so-called faint hope regime is found in section 745.6 and related provisions of the Criminal Code. Basically, it allows those convicted of murder or high treason to apply to be eligible to seek parole as soon as they have served 15 years of their life sentence, no matter how many years of parole ineligibility remain to be served in the sentence originally imposed upon them.

Before going on I should note that because the National Defence Act incorporates by reference the faint hope regime in the Criminal Code, all the changes proposed in Bill S-6 would also apply to any member of the armed forces convicted of capital offences under that legislation.

Allow me to discuss for a moment the reasons these amendments have been brought forward and why the government places such importance on seeing them brought into law.

From the inception of the faint hope regime in 1976, the availability of early parole eligibility for convicted murderers has been a source of concern for many Canadians. These early concerns became more concrete as greater numbers of sentenced murderers began to benefit from early parole in the early 1990s. This in turn led to a citizens' petition for its repeal in the mid-1990s and to considerable negative newspaper commentary.

The passage of time has not alleviated those concerns. Many Canadians continue to be of the view that the existence of a mechanism that allows convicted murderers to short-circuit the lengthier period of parole ineligibility imposed at the time of sentencing offends truth in sentencing and appears to allow for overly lenient treatment of murderers.

In addition, victim advocacy groups argue that faint hope applications add to the trauma experienced by the families and loved ones of murder victims by forcing them to both live in dread that a convicted killer may bring an early application and then require them to relive the details of their terrible losses, during the faint hope review process and any subsequent parole board hearings. The measures proposed in Bill S-6 are in direct response to these concerns.

In this regard, let me briefly recap the current situation regarding parole eligibility for those who commit murder or high treason. I will not go into detail because Bill S-6 is virtually identical to Bill C-36 in the last session of Parliament and hon. members will already be familiar with the broad outlines of what is being proposed.

The Criminal Code currently provides that conviction for the offences of high treason and first degree and second degree murder carry mandatory terms of life imprisonment coupled with mandatory periods of parole ineligibility.

For high treason and first-degree murder, that period of time is 25 years, while for second degree murder it is 10 years except in three situations: first, it is automatically 25 years for any second degree murderer who has previously been convicted of either first or second degree murder; second, it is also automatically 25 years for any second degree murderer who has previously been convicted of an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; and third, it may be anywhere from 11 to 25 years if a judge decides to go beyond the normal 10-year limit in light of the offender's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard.

However, the point to be made is that all first degree and at least some second degree murderers must spend at least 25 years in prison before they are eligible to apply for parole. While this may seem like an appropriately long time, the reality is that the faint hope regime provides a mechanism for offenders to apply to have their ineligibility period reduced so that they serve less time in prison before applying for parole.

What this means is that murderers who are supposed to be serving up to 25 years in jail before applying to the parole board are getting out of prison earlier than they would be if they had to serve the entire parole ineligibility period they were given at sentencing.

Before I go on to describe the current faint hope application process and the changes proposed by Bill S-6, I would also like to set out the changes to the faint hope regime that have been implemented since 1976.

The original procedure was for the offender to apply to the chief justice in the province where the murder took place to reduce the parole ineligibility period imposed at the time of sentencing. The chief justice would then appoint a Superior Court judge to empanel a 12-person jury to hear the application. If two-thirds of the jury agreed, the offender's ineligibility period could be changed as the jury saw fit.

Upon reaching the end of the ineligibility period, the offender could then apply directly to the Parole Board of Canada according to the normal standards for parole. By 1996, of the 204 offenders then eligible to apply for faint hope relief, 79 had done so and 55 had seen their parole ineligibility periods reduced. In other words, of those who applied, a full 75% had been successful.

In response to the public concerns and petition I mentioned earlier, the faint hope regime was amended in 1995, with the amendments coming into force two years later. These amendments had three effects. First, they entirely barred the access to faint hope regime for all future multiple murderers. Thus, since 1997, the faint hope regime has effectively been repealed for any post-1997 multiple murderer. This includes those who were convicted of murder prior to 1997 if they had committed another murder after that date.

Second, for those murderers who retained the right to apply for faint hope, the procedure was changed to require the Superior Court judge named by the chief justice of the province to conduct a paper review of each application beforehand to screen out applications that had no “reasonable prospect” of success. Only if an applicant could meet that new standard would a jury be empanelled to hear the application.

Third, the amendments also set a higher standard of jury unanimity as opposed to a mere two-thirds majority before the parole ineligibility period of an offender could be reduced. In 1999, the Criminal Code was amended yet again in response to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”.

As a result, a judge sentencing someone convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason must state, both for the record and for the benefit of the families and loved ones of murder victims, both the existence and the nature of the faint hope regime. In short, families and loved ones of victims are now at least made aware of the faint hope regime in order to allow them to prepare themselves psychologically in the event that an offender decides to apply later.

Despite these piecemeal attempts to address the criticisms of the faint hope regime raised by concerned Canadians over the years, the faint hope regime remains problematic, nor have parliamentarians been immune from this controversy. Many have also voiced their concerns over the last few years and at least half a dozen private members' bills have been brought forward in that time seeking to repeal the faint hope regime in its entirety.

In the face of the continuing controversy surrounding this issue and the concerns that have been raised both inside and outside the House, it seems clear that this is the time to deal once and for all with the faint hope regime. In this regard, the bill before us today has to two fundamental purposes. The first is to amend the Criminal Code to bar offenders who commit murder and high treason after the date the amendment comes into force from applying for faint hope.

In short, Bill S-6 proposes, effectively, to repeal the faint hope regime entirely for all future offenders. Bill S-6 would thus complete the process begun in 1997 when all multiple murderers who committed at least one murder after the coming into force date were entirely barred from applying for faint hope.

After Bill S-6 is passed and comes into force, no murderer, single or multiple, will be able to apply for faint hope and it will effectively cease to exist except for currently sentenced offenders and anyone who may be convicted or committed murder prior to that date. They will continue to be able to apply until they have reached the end of the original parole ineligibility period imposed upon them.

In this regard, hon. members are no doubt aware that it is a fundamental constitutional principle that a sentence cannot be changed after it has been imposed. Both the mandatory parole ineligibility periods I described earlier, as well as the availability of faint hope, form part of the life sentence imposed on an offender found guilty of murder or high treason.

Repealing the faint hope regime as it applies to the more than 1,000 already incarcerated murderers in this country would be a retroactive change in sentence that would not survive a court challenge under the charter. That does not mean, however, that stricter faint hope application procedures cannot be applied to those who will continue to have the right to apply once this bill becomes law. Thus, the second thing Bill S-6 would do is to tighten up the three stages in the current faint hope application procedure, with the goal of restricting access to these offenders.

Let me now go through the current three-stage faint hope application process in order to highlight the significant changes proposed in Bill S-6. First, as I mentioned earlier, applicants must convince a Superior Court judge in the province where the conviction occurred that there is a reasonable prospect that their application will be successful.

If this threshold test is met, the judge will allow the application to proceed. This is a relatively easy threshold to meet. Bill S-6 will strengthen it by requiring applicants to prove that they have a substantial likelihood of success. This should prevent less-worthy applications from going forward.

At present, applicants rejected at this stage may reapply in as little as two years. Bill S-6 will increase this minimum waiting period from two to five years. An applicant who succeeds at stage one must then convince a jury from the jurisdiction where the murder occurred to agree unanimously to reduce his or her parole ineligibility period. An unsuccessful applicant may reapply in as little as two years. Bill S-6 will also change this waiting period to five years.

An applicant who is successful at stage two of the process is able to apply directly to the Parole Board of Canada. Bill S-6 proposes no changes in this area.

The net result of the change in waiting period from two to five years at stages one and two of the current process will be to reduce the overall number of applications that any offender may make. At present it is theoretically possible to apply every two years once 15 years have been served, for a total of five applications: after having served 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 years respectively.

In normal circumstances, Bill S-6 will permit no more than two applications: after having served 15 years and once again after having served 20 years. Five years following the second rejection, an offender will have served the full 25 years and his or her parole ineligibility period will have expired.

However, this is not all that Bill S-6 will accomplish if passed into law. As things now stand, convicted offenders may apply for faint hope at any point after having served 15 years. The possibility that an application may come out of the blue with no prior warning causes great anxiety to the families and loved ones of murder victims.

For that reason, Bill S-6 will change this by requiring applicants to apply within 90 days of becoming eligible to do so. This means that applicants will have to apply within three months after completing 15 years of their sentence, and if rejected, within three months of the expiry of the next five-year waiting period.

The goal is to provide a greater degree of certainty to the families and loved ones of victims about when or whether a convicted murderer will bring a faint hope application.

Before closing, allow me to address briefly a criticism of Bill S-6 that was raised in the other place, namely that it ignores rehabilitation in favour of retribution. This criticism is misplaced for it appears to assume a role for Bill S-6 in the parole application process that it does not have.

As I have already mentioned, Bill S-6 does not change in any way the third stage in the faint hope application process for successful applicants of applying directly to the Parole Board of Canada.

There is nothing in this bill that in any way affects the ability of convicted murderers to rehabilitate themselves and to apply for parole in the normal course once the parole ineligibility period imposed on them at the time of sentencing has expired.

The bill simply insists that, for all future murderers, the full time in custody to which they were sentenced following conviction be served prior to making an application for parole. In the same way, for those who will continue to have the right to apply after 15 years, the bill simply insists that they follow a stricter procedure in the interests of the families and loved ones of their victims.

This government is committed to redressing the balance in Canada's criminal justice system by putting the interests of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of convicted criminals and by ensuring that families and loved ones of murder victims are not themselves victimized by the justice system.

The rationale for the bill before this House is very simple, that allowing murders, those convicted of the most serious offence in Canadian criminal law, a chance to get early parole is not truth in sentencing. Truth in sentencing means that those who commit the most serious crime will do the most serious time.

I am proud to support this historic measure. The government promised Canadians that it would get tough on violent crime and hold serious offenders accountable for their actions. The measures proposed in Bill S-6 offer further proof that this promise has been kept.

The reforms proposed in this bill have been many years in the making and are decades overdue. They reflect a well-tailored scheme that both responds to the concerns raised by the public and by victims' advocates that the faint hope regime as presently constituted allows for far too lenient treatment of murderers and measures those concerns against constitutional standards.

Bill S-6 proposes to effectively repeal the faint hope regime for all future murderers, as well as to require that currently sentenced offenders who may choose to make an application in the coming years do so according to stricter standards that fairly balance their rights against the legitimate interests of the families and loved ones of their victims.

These reforms are tough but they are fair and they are long overdue. For these reasons I support the bill and I call on all hon. members of the House to do so as well.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

A good outcome; that's right. That's one thing the member for Ottawa--Vanier and I can firmly agree on.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for your invitation to discuss the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to congratulate you for your excellent work on the official languages file.

While I am here to talk about Air Canada, I understand that your committee also considered official language obligations at airports last fall, so I would like to take a minute to clarify the federal government's role in those.

All national airport authorities have official languages obligations by virtue of the Airport Transfer Act and the Official Languages Act. The President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the Official Languages Act, while the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer of the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for defining, monitoring, and enforcing language obligations. Later this month, I understand, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer will be issuing clarifications with respect to the official languages obligations of airport authorities. I look forward to seeing that work.

Now let us focus on Air Canada. As you know, when Air Canada was a crown corporation it was subject to the Official Languages Act. While the Official Languages Act itself is very broad in scope, two provisions are of particular interest when speaking about official language obligations of Air Canada: one, the duty to provide service to the public in both official languages; two, the rights of employees to work in their official language of choice.

When Air Canada was privatized in 1988, official language obligations were maintained on the company through the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

To this day, it is the only carrier in Canada subject to the Official Languages Act. However, all carriers must provide safety and security information in both Official Languages. In 2000, Air Canada acquired Canadian Airlines International, which had a largely unilingual anglophone workforce. At that time the Air Canada Public Participation Act was amended to ensure that Air Canada subsidiaries providing air services to the public did so in both official languages. The effect of this amendment was to require Air Canada to ensure that its subsidiary, Jazz, met legislated requirements to serve the public in a bilingual way.

Then, in 2003, Air Canada filed for bankruptcy protection. After significant restructuring, the carrier successfully exited from bankruptcy protection on September 30, 2004, with a new corporate structure that reflected a strategy focused on maximizing the value of the individual components of the company.

Coming out of restructuring and to this day, the Air Canada Public Participation Act continues to apply to Air Canada, including full official language obligations. Similarly, any future Air Canada subsidiaries will continue to be bound by the official languages obligation under the Air Canada Public Participation Act as currently constituted. However, as a result of the organizational restructuring, official languages obligations no longer apply with respect to operations that have been moved out from under Air Canada. For example, the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not apply to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., which had been the parent company of Air Canada since its restructuring.

On June 15, 2006, your committee tabled a report regarding the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada and ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. The report called upon the government to reintroduce legislation that would be similar in scope and effect to Bill C-47 which died on the order paper the year before.

Late in 2006, our government introduced amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act through Bill C-29. The bill was designed to maintain full official languages obligations for former internal divisions of Air Canada that had been spun off and were controlled by ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.; to extend obligations to provide bilingual services to the public, to Jazz, and any future affiliates of Air Canada that provided air services, as long as they were controlled by ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.; and to ensure that ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. provided communications to the public in both official languages.

Bill C-29 died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in September 2007. It was reintroduced as Bill C-36, with no further amendments. Bill C-36 died on the order paper on September 7, 2008, as a result of the 2008 election.

Although many years have passed since Air Canada was a crown corporation and much has happened in the interim, official language obligations at Air Canada are still viewed by many Canadians and by our government as important. Our government is committed to upholding the Official Languages Act and protecting and promoting both official languages.

As articulated in the Speech from the Throne, Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and our government will continue to strengthen Canada's francophone identity.

We also should consider that the best way to maintain and advance official language rights in aviation is to ensure a healthy and viable industry. The airline industry is and has been facing significant economic challenges, such as the long-term impacts of September 11, 2001, high fuel costs, as well as the effects of communicable diseases such as the H1N1 virus.

However, amid these practical challenges, Air Canada has clearly demonstrated significant efforts to uphold its official language obligations, as indicated by various committee testimonies. The Commissioner of Official Languages tells me that in the lead-up to the Olympic Games they did a lot. This demonstrates that when they make a concentrated effort they can do better. The number of complaints received by the commissioner also indicates that they need to do better.

At a 2009 meeting of this committee, Ms. Louise McEvoy, General Manager of Official Languages and Diversity at Air Canada, reiterated the airline's commitment to improving bilingual capacity throughout the human resources cycle, including recruitment, hiring and training.

In preparation for the Vancouver Olympic Games, Air Canada held mandatory sessions for Vancouver employees not qualified in French, and planned similar sessions for employees in other cities. The goal of these sessions was to ensure that the official languages rights of all Air Canada consumers were respected, including in instances where employees were not officially qualified to do so.

I'm told that Air Canada has mounted publicity campaigns to attract additional bilingual candidates across the country and has noted in comments to the committee that attracting some individuals in certain regions has been difficult. I understand that some of you provided suggestions to improve that recruitment strategy, and I hope the suggestions will yield improved results.

Air Canada's testimony speaks to its dedication to upholding its official languages obligations under the Official Languages Act. Furthermore, following a recent discussion with the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is important to note the efforts made by Air Canada during the Olympic Games and that the efforts and investments made by this carrier paid off.

I would also like to note that my discussions with the Commissioner of Official Languages touched on the subject of strengthening Air Canada's compliance with its linguistic obligations. I was pleased to learn that his team will conduct a detailed audit regarding Air Canada and its obligations to provide bilingual service to the public. In meetings with employees and unions, this study will carefully examine the hiring practices, the designation of bilingual positions and the linguistic training of the Air Canada personnel in order to determine the underlying reasons for the complaints pertaining to official languages. I not only commend the efforts of the commissioner but I am also eager to review the conclusions of his study.

I am mindful that continuing to trace official language obligations to parts of an organization that are increasingly independent creates practical challenges. ACE Aviation Holdings and Air Canada, as private companies, can and likely will continue to modify their organizational structures for both corporate and economic reasons.

For example, Air Canada Cargo, which was spun off after the 2003-04 restructuring, has since been repatriated within Air Canada and is once again covered by the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the Official Languages Act.

I have also discussed with Commissioner Fraser the issue of Air Canada contractors such as Jazz and have noted the concerns of the member for Acadie--Bathurst who provided a personal example from one of his trips aboard Jazz.

In this context, I would like to note that I have also asked the commissioner to obtain more information on the nature of complaints that have been received regarding Jazz. Given that Jazz is a private company contracted by Air Canada, Air Canada, therefore, under article 25 of the Official Languages Act, has an obligation to ensure the services provided to the public on its behalf are in both official languages.

Because Jazz is not a federal institution under the Official Languages Act and has not been a subsidiary of Air Canada since 2008, the official languages commissioner has informed me that he cannot intervene directly with Jazz, but can only intervene with Air Canada, who is responsible for the official languages obligations.

I have asked my officials and my office staff to obtain more information from Air Canada to know how it maintains its obligations under the Official Languages Act with contractors such as Jazz and how it will work to enhance this practice in the future.

I am proud of the accomplishments of our Conservative government in the official language file. Our concrete actions, such as our funding for official languages, clearly demonstrate our commitment to preserve bilingualism in Canada.

I admit that the Air Canada file is a complex one, however, it is nevertheless important that we stay the course and keep working with the key stakeholders, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, the carrier, my cabinet colleagues, such as the Minister for Official Languages, and you, members of the committee, to find solutions to the challenges that I have just mentioned.

It is important that Air Canada continue to meet its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the Official Languages Act. I welcome the advice and thoughts of this committee and welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue.

Thank you. Merci.

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 30, 2009, by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh concerning the inability of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to obtain documents requested from the Head of Correctional Service of Canada in advance of the committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as is described in the 14th Report of the committee which was presented to the House on November 26, 2009.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for having raised this matter. I would also like to thank the members for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Mississauga South, the government House leader, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, as well as the Minister of Public Safety for their interventions.

In presenting his case, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh gave a detailed account of his attempts to ascertain whether the information which a witness, Mr. Don Head of Correctional Service of Canada, had committed to provide to the committee prior to its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36 on November 16 had indeed been provided.

Although the information requested of Mr. Head, the sole source of this information, had been prepared in a timely manner and forwarded to the office of the Minister of Public Safety, it was not until November 23, 2009, the day that Bill C-36 was considered at third reading in the House that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh received an undated copy of a letter containing the information in question. The rest of the committee received a dated version of the same letter on November 25, 2009, the day after the House finished the third reading debate on the bill.

In alleging interference by the minister's office, either through incompetence or deliberate intent, the hon. member questioned the role of ministers in supplying information to committees and concluded that his work as a member of Parliament had been impeded.

This argument was supported by the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the hon. member for Mississauga South, and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

On December 1, 2009, the Minister of Public Safety rose in the House to apologize unreservedly for the unwarranted delay caused by his office in transmitting the requested information from Mr. Head to the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), it is a well-established and unequivocal power of all committees of the House to order the production of papers and records. Page 978, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, describes this as “a broad, absolute power”, and at page 979, it states:

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

When a committee's attempt to obtain information is unsuccessful, there are essentially three options available. As outlined on page 980 of O'Brien and Bosc:

The first is to accept the reasons and conditions put forward to justify the refusal...The second is to seek an acceptable compromise with the author or the authority responsible for access to the record...The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and uphold the order to produce the entire record.

Accordingly, it is then incumbent upon committee members to avail themselves of these options which are designed specifically to ensure that a committee’s power to secure information is not circumvented.

In the case at hand, it is the view of the Chair that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh could have proposed a motion to have the committee report to the House the fact that the information requested had not been received, and request that the House compel the production of that information. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, sets out this process when it notes, on pages 980 to 981:

Since committees do not have the disciplinary power to sanction failure to comply with their order to produce records, they can choose to report the situation to the House and request that appropriate measures be taken. Among the options available to the House is to endorse, with or without amendment, the committee’s order to produce records, thus making it a House order.

By failing to follow this prescribed course of action, the hon. member is asking the House to do that which the committee itself was required to do to remedy this situation. The Chair must note that the committee in question did not come back to the House to request for an order of the House to produce specific papers. As with all claims pertaining to a breach of privilege, the standard which must be demonstrated is whether the member has been impeded in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions by some action or omission.

As outlined in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in the submission of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and through the admission of the Minister of Public Safety, there is no denying that the information failed to reach the committee within the specified time. However, it is equally clear that the proceedings on the bill were nonetheless able to continue, with members’ full participation.

Seeing that neither the committee nor the House appeared to share the view of the hon. member that they needed the requested information in order to complete their deliberations on the bill, I cannot find that a prima facie case exists in this matter.

In this case I will dismiss the matter, but I thank the House for its attention to this ruling.

[Michael B. Murphy, Attorney General, Minister of Justice and Consumer Affairs, Province of New Brunswick, Government of New Brunswick]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-52 and to provide the committee with some information with regard to our government's position on it.

Before I touch on Bill C-52, I want to give you some background on our government's views with regard to our agenda on these matters and what has led us here today.

Part of my responsibility as Attorney General of New Brunswick is to support efforts that will increase the criminal justice system's efficiency and to promote reforms that will inspire a solid level of confidence in the system. I firmly believe that all law-abiding citizens have the right to live in a safe and secure community. They must be able to count on a criminal justice system that protects them against harm and the fear of harm. It is essential to maintain the public's confidence in our judicial system. They must be wholeheartedly convinced that the system protects them against harm and enables them to live free from the fear of becoming a victim of crime. They must have confidence that the system will deal appropriately with those who break the law.

Since I became Attorney General in June of this year--after three wonderful years as Minister of Health--I have supported many of the measures brought forward by Justice Minister Nicholson here in Ottawa. I believe the laws with regard to our criminal justice system must have meaningful and proportionate consequences for those who offend. There are very serious offences of a violent nature out there, but of course there are very serious offences of a non-violent nature that cause complete disruption to certain lives. Often those crimes are committed against our most vulnerable.

Just to give you some past record, we have in New Brunswick supported Bill C-25 in terms of losing the two-for-one remand. We believe remand lost its purpose with regard to the reason that there was a two-for-one credit.

We supported Bill C-15, with its mandatory minimum sentences for those involved in the production or trafficking of drugs, because it was to protect our most vulnerable, those being our children and those afflicted with drug use. I did see that close up as Minister of Health. That is a very sad picture across the country.

Of course, we're also pleased with Bill C-36, the faint hope clause, and the progress being taken towards passage.

In New Brunswick we have taken some steps to make our communities safer. Last week we partnered with the Child and Youth Advocate in his request that there be a law in New Brunswick for consumer protection. This stems from the report that there ought to be a law protecting children's online privacy in the 21st century. We partnered with them for a working group that includes the Child and Youth Advocate's office and the Department of Justice. We also put on that working group a member of the opposition in New Brunswick, because we do not believe--I am sure members of this committee will agree--that this is in any way, shape, or form a partisan issue.

The working group will come forward with legislation in the spring of 2010. We hope to bring that into the Legislature next fall. We believe this will complement Bill C-58, which, as you know, is the federal bill that will require mandatory reporting by Internet providers when it comes to child pornography.

For that reason, I have asked the officials in my department to form a working group with representatives of the Child and Youth Advocate's Office to study possible amendments to our province's legislation that would allow us to achieve these goals. The working group will be submitting its report to me in the spring of 2010.

With respect to the bill under consideration, Bill C-52, we're pleased that this is a bit of a crackdown on white-collar crime, because white-collar crime is committed most often at the expense of the life savings of our most vulnerable. These victims are, by and large, the elderly, those who sometimes do not have the wherewithal to see some of the red flags that are there, but we know one thing: all of these victims are individuals who worked their entire lives for what savings they have. Those savings may be $15,000, $50,000, $300,000, or possibly $1 million, but it means absolutely everything to them, so I want to make three points with regard to Bill C-52.

First of all, the New Brunswick Securities Commission has been active and effective in taking steps to protect investors from unfair, improper, and fraudulent practices, and I'm confident that Bill C-52 will complement the work of the securities commission in New Brunswick by providing for a minimum two-year sentence for fraud exceeding, cumulatively or in a single instance, $1 million. It will send a very clear message to those who believe they can perpetrate this crime.

On this first point, though, I'd like to say that while there is an inclusion of additional aggravating factors that can be applied in sentencing, I'm going to urge this committee to consider a figure below $1 million, and I will get into a story very shortly. Suffice it to say that $20,000, $30,000, or $50,000 means absolutely everything to a person who's worked all his or her life. The person gets it and starts to use it at the age of 65 and plans to use it very sparingly between ages 65 and 85 to make ends meet. When they lose that money because of a fraud, it is just as devastating to them as the loss of several hundreds of thousands of dollars or a million dollars.

The second point I want to make with regard to Bill C-52 is that the bill will require judges to consider restitution. In New Brunswick we have a provincial proceeds of crime unit that's been very successful, but we are also bringing forward a civil forfeiture act in January that I think will complement Bill C-52 and our proceeds of crime unit. The civil forfeiture bill in January will allow the Department of Justice, through its lawyers, to sue individuals who have used their property--whether it's their home office, their computer, their small office building, their big office building, or whatever--essentially as a tool of crime. They will sue for that property.

We have, in this country and in New Brunswick, seen far too many times someone who was sentenced to six months--or a year and a half, or even two and a half years--go back to the very large home or office building or whatever property the person had that had been used to perpetrate the crime. The civil forfeiture act that we envisage in New Brunswick will be in compliance with the same civil forfeiture act that's been tested before the Supreme Court of Canada and found valid. The civil forfeiture act under a different name in Ontario and British Columbia has been very successful; 99% of the time the defendants walk away, because they don't want to sign an affidavit outlining that they have a $20,000 income and $1 million in assets. They were told, I think it was in Ontario, that they had three years to be self-sufficient, and in fact that was attained after 18 months. As you know, it is on a balance of probabilities, which is somewhat easier in that sense than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” onus.

Lastly, I want to point out that if we are to succeed in the fight against securities fraud, it is crucial to be able to count on sufficient resources to provide the expertise required in the complex fields of investigation and detection. Canada's other orders of government have said that federal assistance is essential for improving their detection and law enforcement capabilities, and I echo their arguments. Increased probability of detection can be a key deterrent to crime.

Look, ten minutes is not a lot of time. It usually takes one of the Murphys ten minutes just to clear our throats.

Suffice it to say, I would think there is no magic in this $1 million figure. I think this Bill C-52 is a very good bill, and I applaud the government for bringing it forward. At the same time, you know, if you have 30 acts against individuals who lost on average $30,000, that can be just as devastating to that family or to many families as a bullet would be to any of those victims.

I think it has been a long time that we have been looking at the rights of the offender. We've certainly considered and we respect the charter, and we respect the principles of the Criminal Code of Canada, but there is no reason why we should not be theming within our federal acts, and our provincial acts, the rights of the victims of crime. I think all of these bills—federal and provincial—should consider that.

It is because we want to set the record straight.

We want to bring the pendulum back so that the people in the communities across this country know those acts are designed to protect them on deterrence and punishment, and on restitution. The restitution aspect can be accomplished in some part by Bill C-52 but also considerably enhanced by a civil forfeiture act's being brought forward in all the provincial legislatures.

I'm asking the committee to consider a figure below $1 million. I'm certainly fine with the two-year minimum sentence, but I do believe we have to consider that there is just no magic in that. There are an awful lot of people who can tell you a story where their lives have been ruined and their extended families' lives have been ruined on figures of $30,000, $40,000, or $100,000.

I'll conclude by saying this. There was a gentleman who came to my office about two months ago, and he had been defrauded of a figure many times smaller than $1 million. He was embarrassed. He was 75 years old. He was crying. He didn't know what to do, and the fact was that all I could tell him was that there would be an investigation by the securities commission with regard to fraudulent practices and that the prosecutors would deal with this and would look at the statute. I would have liked to tell this individual that there was a minimum sentence of two years for something such as that, but I couldn't. I would have liked to tell him that there would be a minimum sentence of two years for the amount he had been defrauded, which was every bit as powerful to his family as a bullet right through any member of his family.

Sometimes it takes the visuals, and sometimes it takes the story and the face of a victim before you to understand the significance of the crime. While we have acts of violence that are looked after by the Criminal Code of Canada, the repercussions of acts of white-collar crime against our vulnerable can be every bit as devastating as the violent act.

Thank you.

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in no way do I want to diminish the seriousness of this question of privilege. Every time a member rises with a question of privilege in the chamber, it is a matter of some seriousness. However, I would state, Mr. Speaker, for your benefit that the issue we are dealing with here, which the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has raised, is in regard to Bill C-36, which I think most people know is the repeal of the faint hope clause. That is one of many bills in our justice reform legislative agenda.

I also note that the member is making some pretty serious allegations about the withholding of information and documents from the justice committee by the Minister of Public Safety. In fairness, the minister is not present. I suspect that at his very earliest convenience, he is going to want to attend the chamber to make a statement in this regard and I would ask the Speaker to set aside this question of privilege until that opportunity is afforded to the Minister of Public Safety.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the member's amendment that we considered in relation to Bill C-36 and that asked for the matter to go back to committee. I was certainly grateful that the member brought it to the House, and I voted for that amendment to send it back to committee because I felt so strongly that the information requested by the committee was so vital and fundamental to the bill itself. One could not possibly, with 10-year-old information, properly debate the matter in committee, and that is what the member has brought to our attention.

I would like to make reference to House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc, page 89, under the section “Rights and Immunities of Individual Members”, specifically the paragraph under “Freedom of Speech”. It reads as follows:

By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. It has been described as:

“[…] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents”.

The reason this is relevant to the privilege issue raised by the member is that there is in fact a decision pending from the Supreme Court of Canada right now on the issue of access to information, and the argument is very directly related to the right of freedom of speech, a charter right, in fact, under section 2.

Just underneath that right in the charter, it also says that we have the right to vote. If we follow that through to its logical progression, as has been argued in the courts, if one has the right to vote, one must have the right of access to information. Because one needs that right of access to information, the right of access is implicit in the charter. That is the whole argument.

We have a situation here where in fact the right of freedom of speech has been inhibited because the access to information necessary for members of Parliament to discharge their duties has been interfered with by a minister of the Crown. Not only did he withhold this information from the justice committee, but it is also the same minister who withheld the RCMP report from the debate on the gun registry information and may in fact be involved in withholding documents with regard to the Afghanistan detainees.

There is a pattern here and it is a pattern that is disturbing to me. That is why I rose in the debate on the amendment and why I am rising today, because I believe that the rights of members of Parliament to discharge their responsibilities have been interfered with by the obstruction of the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the question of privilege raised by my colleague. Since he quoted me a number of times in his speech, I think I should confirm that, indeed, we did not have some of the information that we should have.

That information was not sent to us before November 16, the anticipated date of the vote following clause by clause review. After the vote we learned that the information was available and on the minister's desk on November 13. What is more, that information was sent to the clerk. In any event, the letter I have indicates that the information was sent to Ms. Burke, the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 13.

There is no excuse and I think the privilege motion should be accepted because it is a matter of principle. We asked Mr. Head very important questions and the documents we finally received afterward—and I am convinced of this—probably would have swayed the position of a number of Liberal MPs on adopting Bill C-36, and we even seriously think that some Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would have changed their minds.

Accordingly, we hope you will find this is a prima facie question of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 14th report of the justice committee dated November 25 was presented to the House on November 26. My question of privilege involves the interference, and I put that objectively, by the minister's office with respect to evidence that had been requested by the justice committee from the head of Correctional Service Canada. The report sets out the sequence of events on how this came about, and I will refer to those events.

With regard to the privilege itself, I believe my privilege has been breached not only vis-à-vis the work I need to do as a member of Parliament, but that of other members of the committee and the committee as a whole. You may wish, Mr. Speaker, to go beyond the report itself to the blues to substantiate the specifics.

Mr. Don Head, who was before committee on November 4, made very clear commitments as to what information he had available and whether he could get that information back to committee in time for it to consider the information when we were doing clause-by-clause.

The need for this information was heightened in this situation by the fact that members of committee, including myself, had ascertained that was the only source for this information. We had asked the Department of Justice if it had this information. We had solicited the information from the Juristat division of Statistics Canada. Both indicated that they did not have the information. I checked with academics to see if they had it. All three of those traditional sources for this type of information indicated to committee that the only source for this information was Correctional Service Canada. As a result, on November 4, at committee's request, Mr. Don Head, the head of Correctional Service Canada, appeared before committee. The report sets this out.

In response to questions from myself and from the Bloc member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Mr. Head indicated that he had the information we had request but he did not have it with him that day. He indicated that he could have it by the time committee considered Bill C-36 at clause-by-clause, which was scheduled to be considered at that stage on November 16. Mr. Head was very clear that he could do that.

On November 16, I sought from the clerk of that committee whether in fact the information had been received. I and was advised at that time, as I believe at least one other member of committee was advised, that it had been received and had been sent to our offices. I did not see it and assumed that there had been a mixup in my office and we had not received it. The committee went ahead on November 16 with clause-by-clause consideration and the bill was sent back to the House.

I then made a second request for that information on November 18. When I checked in my office, I did not have it. I wanted that information so it would be available for my argument in the House at third reading stage of Bill C-36, which was scheduled at that time and took place on November 23.

When I arrived at my office on the morning of November 23, I found out that we still did not have the information. Only at that time, were we advised that the information had not come to committee yet. It had been prepared by Mr. Head and was in the hands of the Minister of Public Safety.

Quite frankly I was quite upset. I intended to debate this on the November 23, and at that time, before I actually had a chance to start my speech, the deputy House leader for the Conservatives approached me and gave me a letter, undated, from Mr. Head. It set out the information for which the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and I had asked, although some of it was quite confusing. Some of the specific questions were answered. That letter had been altered to the extent that the date had been taken off it. I had no opportunity to use that information.

On November 24, the bill passed the House by a recorded vote. On November 25, around noon, the same letter with the date on it appeared in our offices. The justice committee was meeting again on November 25 so we could get the report because the Conservatives had stalled it. When I attempted to get the report out of the committee on November 23, they talked it out, so we had to come back on November 25. Right around noon on November 25 we received the letter and it was dated this time. The date on the letter, signed by Mr. Head, responding in some detail to some of the questions asked by myself and the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, was dated the November 13. Had we received that letter, we could have used that information, and it was quite relevant information, both at clause-by-clause and again in the debate in the House, sharing that information with the rest of the committee and with all members of the House in their consideration of Bill C-36. That was denied to us by the minister's office.

I want to cover some of the relevance of this because of the questions that were asked. We asked very specific questions on the rate of recidivism of people who were subject to that section of the code. We wanted to know how often it was used and specific information. In that regard, the last solid evidence we had was 10 years old. The last time a report like this had been prepared was in 1999. We needed an update on that information, and several of the key points were answered in this letter. It was completely relevant to what we needed and we were denied it.

The role of the minister is quite crucial to the role of committees, the relationship of committees and the work we do in setting public policy and reviewing bills in detail in a prudent fashion. In all honesty, I have not been able to find any prior rulings by Speakers in the House as to whether the minister has any right to insist that this type of information is vetted by him or his office before it is given to the committee. I cannot say that it has been ruled either way in the research that I and my staff have done. I would argue quite strongly that it is one of the issues that has to be decided in the determination you will make, Mr. Speaker, as to whether we have made out a prima facie case for interference and breach of privilege.

If a minister is capable of doing that, the work of the committees becomes even less relevant than it is at this point. What we need is assurance. If we are to be helping with our votes and in the work we do here in setting public policy, we need to know we have unlimited access to the information within the departments in the government. There is a long history of decisions in other areas where Speakers have said that we are supposed to have that.

Coming back, if the minister can decide whether and when we are to get that information, it makes the committees a farce. The minister simply by withholding information for a period of time, allowing votes to go ahead, allowing consideration of clause-by-clause to go ahead can stymie the work of the committee quite effectively.

At this point, we do not know, because we have heard nothing from the minister in this regard, if this was a question of incompetence on the part of his office in not recognizing the timelines that Mr. Head had very clearly committed to or whether it was intentional to withhold this information until the committee had completed its work and it was no longer of any use to us.

Whichever it is, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that we have made out a prima facie case. If you so find, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his question.

This Thursday I will contain myself mainly to the traditional question which is the business ahead for the next week for the House of Commons.

This week we are focusing yet again on the government's justice bills. Yesterday we completed the final reading of Bill C-36, the serious time for serious crime bill. We expect to send Bill C-58, the child protection bill, to committee later today. I had hoped that debate might have collapsed before question period and that bill would have already been on its way to committee. Hopefully that will happen this afternoon.

We will then be debating at second reading Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. We are hopeful debate will conclude on this bill as well today.

Other bills scheduled for debate this week are Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, and Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Shoker bill.

Next week we will be calling for debate: Bill C-27, anti-spam, at third reading; Bill C-44, the Canada Post remailers bill, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Canada-Jordan free trade bill, at second reading; Bill C-56, fairness for the self-employed bill, at report stage and third reading; and of course, as always, I will give consideration to any bill that is reported back from committee.

My hon. colleague asked about allotted days. Next Tuesday, it would be my intention to have as the next allotted day.

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is quite right.

First of all, this was not the best effort of the government, quite frankly. It has not thought it through carefully. It has not taken the opportunity to look at ways in which we can have legislation that is going to deal with the incidents.

For some odd reason, the government seems to think that if we have a tough enough penalty out there, that is going to be a deterrent. That does not work. Bad criminals simply do not respond. They do not think about what the penalty is under the Criminal Code, and then decide whether or not they are going to do the crime. That is not the case.

With regard to the question about the money, the member is quite right. If the government has a bill and is prepared, then it has anticipated the questions and it will have the answers.

When Bill C-36 was before committee, the government did not even have an answer about how many people actually applied under section 745. Why is it that the government does not get it? It does not understand that if it is serious about legislation, it better bring forward the facts and the information, put it all on the table and let it stand on its merit. That would be good legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution to this debate, which I listened to with some interest. I have a couple of questions.

He talked about the faint hope clause. I am not sure there is a clear nexus or relation between that and the bill under consideration, but he spoke in favour of the faint hope clause and, by definition, against what happened yesterday when the House voted at third reading to abolish it. I am curious as to why he did not vote against Bill C-36 yesterday if he felt so strongly.

With respect to his rhetorical question as to why a child under five could be the subject of sexual abuse, which is a very good question, I am curious as to his thoughts respecting this government's universal child care plan, a plan that provides families with support to make choices and to provide balance between work and home thus allowing parents to be more interactive in the raising of their children.