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.

Criminal Code

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona on a point of order.

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When we left this matter earlier today, the member for St. John's East had completed his speech, but there remain five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member has to do with information that would come out in discussions we have had on the bill, the faint hope clause, for some time. It has to do with the statistical occurrence of these serious crimes by family members against family members and friends against friends. Most Canadians would agree these would not be characterized as severe criminals, but rather some other characterization where they would not be a dangerous offender, for instance.

Does the member have any information on the latest statistics with regard to the incidence of crimes of people who know each other very well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the actual statistics. I do not have them before me, but I know that the vast majority of murders are committed by someone who knows the person who is the victim of the crime. I suppose that begs the question as to whether the intention on the other side, in removing the faint hope clause, is to extract a supreme punishment so the average penalty for someone who is given a life sentence raises beyond 28.4 years imprisonment than it does now, or whether the government is really worried about the protection of society.

I believe it is commonly known by criminologists and others that the type of crimes that the hon. member speaks of are not normally crimes which may be repeated and that the opportunity for rehabilitation is probably greater. The protection of society can be achieved with a faint hope clause where it can be demonstrated and a jury unanimously agrees that the person can apply for parole. Then the Parole Board can determine whether it believes the person is a threat to society and make the decision.

I believe the information the hon. member speaks of is actually helpful to the idea of retaining the faint hope clause.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, serious time for the most serious crime act. This amends provisions with regard to the rights of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole.

This is done by the elimination of the so-called faint hope clause. It is a clause by which those who are given a life sentence for murder or high treason can apply for parole after having served 15 years of their sentences.

This section of the Criminal Code is known colloquially as the faint hope clause because it provides offenders with the possibility of obtaining parole after serving 15 years of a sentence for murder where the sentence was life without eligibility for parole after more than 15 years.

Offenders convicted of first degree murder serve life as a minimum sentence, with their first parole eligibility set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, but the judge can set the parole eligibility point anywhere between 10 and 25 years. Those who are serving a life sentence can be released from prison if parole is granted by the National Parole Board.

If inmates are granted parole, they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a Correctional Service Canada parole officer. Parole can be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time. This does not allow them to get out of jail free forever. They can be returned to prison at any time if they violate any of the conditions of parole or if they commit a new offence. Not all “lifers”, people who are in jail for life, will be granted parole. Some may actually never be released on parole because they continue to pose a risk of reoffending.

I rise today because I am against getting rid of the faint hope clause. I am against it because it really is faint hope. Not very many prisoners actually access this clause. Further, it is very much an incentive for inmates to behave, to ensure corrections workers are safe and to promote good behaviour in the prison system because there is the faint hope of release.

The Association Québecoise des Avocats et Avocates de la Défense appeared in committee and put forward an excellent submission about the actual impacts and implications of abolishing the faint hope clause. It asked a great question in committee. Why get rid of a measure that is likely to encourage individuals who have committed a serious crime to be rehabilitated? Why would we get rid of something that would encourage them to be rehabilitated and become active members of society?

Further, with respect to the average time spent in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder, the average time served in Canada is greater than in all the other countries that the association surveyed, including the United States. The average time spent in custody is 12 years in Sweden and 14.4 years in England. Guess what it is in Canada? It is 28.4 years in Canada. Canada's offenders are serving sentences beyond the 25 year mark.

In 1976 a bill was introduced to allow for a review of the period of ineligibility after 15 years. This was in the submission of this group, which quoted Jim Fleming, who was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of communications at the time. He was quoted as saying the provision was “a very important glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals”. It still resonates today.

In 1998 there was the Ontario Supreme Court decision in Vaillancourt in which Associate Chief Justice Callaghan held that the review process needed to strike a balance between considerations of leniency for the well behaved convict in service of his sentence and it may serve to assist in his rehabilitation and the community interest in repudiation and deterrence of the conduct that led to his incarceration.

The numbers of people who are accessing the faint hope clause are not what the government would have us believe. We do not have murderers lining up at the door and suddenly accessing this provision and getting out of jail without serving time. It is just not the case, although the government would have us believe it is the case. What it is trying to do is scare us into passing these crime and punishment laws that actually do not impact and affect very many people, numbers wise, but they can have a tremendous impact on those people.

In the first faint hope group of hearings in 1987 to 2000, only 21% of eligible offenders even applied for a hearing. Over those 13 years, 84 cases were successful in having some reduction in parole ineligibility, an average of 6 a year. Therefore we are looking at very small numbers.

In the same 13 year period, the parole of only 4 offenders was revoked for an alleged new offence. They were armed robbery, drug offences and two less serious drug offences, but parole can be revoked for any reoffence.

The four amendments in 1997 significantly curtailed the availability of section 745.6. The Canadian Bar Association noted how few people this impacted and said that of the 63 completed applications prior to 1995, 13 were rejected, 19 were allowed to go to apply, 27 were allowed to go to the board only after 16 to 20 years in prison and only 3 could go on to the board after 21 to 23 years were served. Six prisoners whose applications to the jury were successful were ultimately denied release by the Parole Board.

Therefore, it is important to remember that we have people who are not even self-selecting, not even saying they will make that application. Even those who are allowed to make the application and those who then go on and are granted early release, and the numbers are getting smaller and smaller, are subject to a lifetime of supervision and may be re-institutionalized for any transgression. It is also notable that of those who have been allowed early release to date, only one has reoffended by committing an armed robbery.

The numbers are so low, but the results are staggering because this means the possibility of rehabilitation. I would note that this has possible implications for taxpayers. After serving over 15 years in prison, it has the possibility to save taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year if the board is satisfied that this person is rehabilitated.

I noted earlier that the Canadian Bar Association appeared before committee. That association is a national association and it represents over 37,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and students across Canada. Its primary objectives include improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It takes prosecutors, defence lawyers and legal academics from every province and territory. It is seeking to improve the law and improve the administration of justice.

The association has come out quite unequivocally against getting rid of the faint hope clause. I will read from the submission of the CBA. It was talking about what the government was doing. It is saying that the government communication on Bill C-36 suggests an increase in the number of offenders who are being released under this clause. The CBA says that this is far from the reality and it has the numbers to back it up.

It says that the government seems to imply that even one person having access to the National Parole Board before serving his or her full 25 years is too many. The CBA clearly states that it disagrees with that statement, and I disagree with it as well.

If we are going to consider any review or amendment of the Criminal Code, we must recognize that all reform needs to be fact based. It needs to include an appraisal of the present situation and a careful assessment of whether reforms will actually enhance the objectives of sentencing in the criminal justice system, not just what the polling numbers say.

Important questions need to be answered, such as what are we trying to accomplish. Are these reforms actually going to make our communities safer, and do we need this legislative change?

Let us consider some of these things.

I go back to the point of the faint hope clause. It operates fairly, effectively and efficiently. It really needs to be retained and should not be amended. It gives hope to people who are serving lengthy terms of imprisonment, which encourages rehabilitation. This results in safer conditions within prisons, and in the outside world as well, once a person has been rehabilitated.

Each time the National Parole Board decides that a prisoner can be safely and gradually released, again under supervision, after serving 15 years in prison, it saves taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. This also provides a unique opportunity for community input into an integral and essential part of the sentencing process.

I mentioned doing things based on polling numbers. A lot of people do believe that the faint hope clause simply allows convicted murderers to be released after serving only 15 years of their sentences, but that is not the case, and it is time for us to set the record straight on that.

The Canadian Bar Association quoted Professor Allan Manson, who has noted that:

[those who] claim that parole eligibility review does not have public support seem to ignore the fact that a prisoner's application is determined by a jury who are usually members of the community where the offence was committed. Accordingly, the prisoner obtains relief only if the jury decides in his or her favour.

It is actually the community that is making the decisions about whether or not somebody is released. I cannot think of more broad-based public support than having a jury made up of one's peers in the community actually making these decisions.

The jury's verdict absolutely must be seen as a measure of public support for this process, particularly because the jury actually has to have a unanimous decision. It is not just a matter of a couple of folks saying, “Let us give this guy a break”, but the unanimous decision of a jury.

My colleagues from Mississauga South and St. John's East had an earlier conversation in the House about people who have been convicted of murders and who actually know their victims. That is very much the case. I do not have the statistic in front of me, but the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers know their victims. So when there is an opportunity for victims to give input to the jury, there are people there who know each other. Families are involved.

We have to think about what kind of input they would be giving to a jury and that sometimes there may be opportunities for a family or community to say, “We want you back. It is time for you. You have served and been rehabilitated, and we have an interest in your coming back to the community. We have a stake in your coming back to the community”. That is a very powerful consideration.

To recap, the faint hope clause serves a very important purpose in that it does provide faint hope. If someone who is convicted of murder or high treason works very hard at rehabilitation and is truly remorseful, he or she might be released on parole after serving 15 years, but before the full 25 years of incarceration are up.

It is a faint hope, because they actually need to satisfy their case management team, their psychologists, their psychiatrists, a judge, and a jury, that the application is even worth being considered by the National Parole Board.

Look at all of those steps. Ultimately, it is the National Parole Board that remains responsible for determining if the offender is worthy of early parole, but look at all of those people who need to be convinced first. It is an onerous process, as it should be, and it is not something to be taken lightly.

The faint hope clause does provide an incentive. We can say this over and over again, because it is incredibly important that there be an incentive for those serving a life sentence to behave well while in custody and to seek out rehabilitative programming.

I ask members, what would they do in that position? If they were in prison and knew there was absolutely no chance of being released, would they engage in rehabilitative programming? I do not know if I would.

This is a reason for them to work on their behaviour. This is a reason to get engaged with rehabilitative programming.

Moreover, let us not forget our brothers and sisters working in these prisons. The faint hope clause contributes to safer working conditions for prison guards and employees of the Correctional Service of Canada. Anything that we can do to make a safer environment for them, I think is something we should all get behind.

A purely punitive model is inconsistent with years of research and statistics that have founded our sentencing philosophy in Canada. We have not just come up with this and made it up; this is based on years of research to show what actually works when we are looking at sentencing philosophy and principles. We need sentencing principles that show that a safer society is achieved by emphasizing rehabilitative initiatives and adherence to human rights principles within penal institutions.

The Canadian Bar Association section recommends that Bill C-36 not be enacted. I actually will read directly from the bar's submission because the last paragraph of its submission completely sums up what we should all know about this clause. The association writes:

The “faint hope” clause does not jeopardize public safety, as shown by experience to date. The current limits on the availability of “faint hope” hearings provide ample impediments to undeserved or frivolous applications. There are few “faint hope” hearings. The number of murderers who offend at all, let alone violently, while on parole is extremely low. On the other hand, the “faint hope” clause serves important functions, in terms of fairness and rehabilitation for deserving offenders who have made significant changes over 15 or more years of incarceration.

I think the bar association's conclusion sums it up perfectly. We need to offer faint hope for all the reasons listed above. For safety in prisons, for behaviour, and if we want to throw in the taxpayer money angle of it, we need to support the faint hope clause and stand in opposition to this bill.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the presentation by the NDP member. I noted she was talking about the fact that the system, as it currently exists, works fairly effectively and efficiently.

She also quoted extensively from the Canadian Bar Association, which has its own perspective on this bill.

I would like to give her an opportunity here on public television and in Hansard to speak directly to the victims, not the victims who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, unfortunately, but the parents, the friends, the family and neighbourhoods of those victims who are once again faced with the reality of what they were feeling 15, 20, or 25 years ago, and the immense loss they and their communities have suffered, when the faint hope hearing comes up. They again face the same tearing, the same shredding, of their emotions from the heinous crime that was perpetrated against a loved one in their family. I would like the member to relate her perspective to them on why this bill should not be repealed and why these people should not have an opportunity to avoid the kind of tearing that happens at these faint hope clause hearings.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not take lightly what happens to victims of serious crime. It is a tragedy. I wish the government would put more energy and effort into preventing crime rather that just cleaning up after the fact, waving flags and having press conferences.

I have experienced this within my own family. We have suffered violence at the hands of one family member against another. The first family member went to prison, as he should have. He served his time, and when he was released, we were the victimized family who said, “Now is the time”. We welcomed him back into our family and community with open arms. I would also point out that this was very serious, because he was the sole breadwinner for the family.

There are other considerations at play. The violence should not have happened, and nobody in my family thinks it should, but there are other considerations at play. For example, this person is a valued member of our community who has been rehabilitated, and he does need to move on and continue to give back to, and be a part of, the community.

Once again, I will bring up the process that we are looking at here. The victims of an offender's crime may provide information either orally or in writing to the jury. So we have the victims' input. Often, the victims are saying, “This is the time”. Moreover, the jury has to reach a unanimous decision.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious matter when the government proposes to make any changes to the Criminal Code. It is a very important law for the protection of citizens.

One thing I have noticed is that some members have mentioned heinous criminals, such by the Clifford Olsons of the world. It is very important for the record to clarify that the faint hope clause is not available to multiple murderers. Maybe the member could respond to this. We need to be clear about the existing constraints on this provision.

In her reply to the question from the hon. member across the floor, she also mentioned the need for more attention to be paid to the prevention of crime. I think it is also important to look at the contexts of these crimes. In many cases, they are crimes of passion within families and communities and involve, in many cases, people who have been abandoned, who are homeless, who are destitute and drug-ridden.

I wonder if she could speak to the issue of whether or not we are putting enough money into crystal meth treatment for youth, for example, so they do not get involved in serious crime and, ultimately, in murder and in going to prison.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is really about prevention. It really is about these bigger issues.

Look at who is in prison. It is first nations individuals and aboriginal Canadians. In my home province of Nova Scotia, African Nova Scotians are in prison, as are people with disabilities and mental health issues.

Does this mean that African Nova Scotians are bad people and all of them deserve to go to jail? No, of course not. What is the root cause here? We have to look at things like racism, poverty and treatment. My office is in the north end of Halifax, where there are lot of social problems. Two weeks ago during our break week, one of my constituents came in from the street. We know each other quite well. He was just out of jail for serious drug offences. He came in to say hi and to talk about it.

He is not a bad guy. He has an addiction issue, he committed a crime and he wants to be rehabilitated, but he cannot get into a treatment program. He cannot find a treatment program to help him deal with his issues.

I thank the member for her question. I think she is bang on.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments of the opposition to this bill and it all seems to be about the offender. Every last bit of it is about the poor offender who committed these terrible crimes like murder, and yet we are talking about releasing them early.

Not enough time is being spent in this debate on the victims. There are all kinds of people who have said something about the victims. There have been some comments made here in the House. One was made by Teresa McQuaig, whose grandson, Sylvain Leduc, was murdered on October 28, 2009.

I was at the parole hearing for Clifford Olson. For 25 years, he was applying for parole. Two years went by so quickly and it was time to go back again. I remember saying to Sharon Rosenfeldt, “My God, is it two years already? You are going to go through this hell all over again tomorrow”.

It is so hard on victims, it is not fair. Five years, I think, would be reasonable.

Is my colleague going to give any consideration at all to the families of the victims, not to the offender?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately about the victims. It is about the victims because it is about the individuals, it is about the families, and it is about the communities that will be safer when somebody has actually engaged in rehabilitation programs.

Imagine a world where someone who was released had no remorse, had not engaged in rehabilitation programs, and had not made any effort to reintegrate into society. Imagine people being released where society was still at risk. This is such a process. A jury needs to make a unanimous decision before an applicant goes to the Parole Board.

This is exactly about the victims. This is about keeping our communities safe. This is about helping people, giving them reason to actually engage in rehabilitation programs. This is about engaging with them and not just about signing on a dotted line. This is about our communities. This is about keeping people safe, whether it is the victim, the victim's family, or the community that the victim comes from.

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

Madam Speaker, countries in Europe, for example, Belgium and England, have a similar type of legislation with a faint hope clause. Could the member give us any examples of successes that have emanated out of those jurisdictions or any other jurisdictions around the world?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I actually do not have at my fingertips examples of other jurisdictions where this has worked. As the member very rightly points out, the faint hope clause is working in other jurisdictions.

I come back to the submission of the Canadian Bar Association which said that any time we are going to look at the Criminal Code, any time we are going to make amendments or reform the Criminal Code, we need to base it on solid evidence. We need to base it on research. We need to base it on what we know to be true when it comes to sentencing and dealing with crime, and not base it on emotion. That was a great line in the CBAs submission at committee. We should not be basing this on emotion. We should be basing it on what we know works.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that Bill C-36 has only one title in French and in English. Loi modifiant le Code criminel is in French and it is An Act to amend the Criminal Code in English, but it is also worth noting, as we go through the different documents and papers that were prepared in previous months by different associations and attorneys, the Canadian Bar Association is a good example, to see the title of Bill C-36 appearing and re-appearing as the serious time for the most serious crime act.

The question might arise, who cares? This is a description perhaps of the way the Conservatives wanted this sold, but actually it is an extremely important distinction, one on which it is worth spending a little time today if we want to know how we can best decode what the Conservatives are up to here.

This has rigorously nothing to do with the supposed the protection of victims. This is about people who have committed a crime, are now in jail, and whether or not we should be spending some time and effort to rehabilitate. We should be making life less dangerous for people who are working as prison guards, by making sure that people do have, and that is what it is called, some faint hope that if they behave properly, they might be able to go before a judge and ask that their case be reviewed by someone else.

However, when we see this type of gamesmanship on the part of the Conservatives, giving things different names. In fact, this bogus name even re-appears on some fairly serious documents. I have the legislative summary prepared by someone whose title is legal in the legislative affairs division of the Library of Parliament, and another document with regard to questions and considerations on that bill. They use in both cases “An Act to amend the Criminal Code” and then they go on and use the subtitle, which does not exist, the subtitle of serious time for the most serious crime act. It simply begs the question: If that is not the title of the act, what is it? If that is not part of the legislative process, what is it doing here in the Canadian Parliament? How does it make it through, and what are they really about?

Here is the answer to the question why the Conservatives are playing games like this is because that is what this is all about. This has rigorously nothing to do with the serious subject of the Criminal Code. This has nothing to do with better protection of victims. It has everything to do with positioning, posturing, and the type of pandering that the Conservatives have been doing to their Reform base for years.

Just prior to this debate starting again we had one of the Conservatives stand up and talk about the gun registry. He gave the figure that it had cost so much and that became an argument to knock it down. Quite the contrary, the very existence of the gun registry and the fact that it is something that was put in place at great cost is a further argument for maintaining it, especially in light of the fact that every police force in Canada is asking Parliament not to do away with the long-gun registry.

I was in Montreal last Thursday for the annual policemen's awards. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Sûreté du Québec, Montreal and area police forces, and police officers from across the province were there, where we saw brave women and men receive recognition by their peers for their extraordinary work.

The one political message delivered time after time by police officers themselves throughout that day, because there were a lot of people there from Parliament, both from the Senate, from this House and from other levels of government, was “Whatever you do, do not take away something that protects our lives”. They explained to us that the gun registry is consulted tens of thousands of times per day across Canada. It is an instrument for public protection and it is an instrument for police protection.

As a father of a police officer, I am always extremely concerned about that, because I understand what it means to have a police officer in an area where there is a long history of that and going to a place where there has been a signaling of some domestic dispute. He or she at least has that much more information going to the door knowing that there might be firearms in that house. That simply is one more measure of protecting police officers.

This is the ultimate irony. The members who stand up day after day and give bogus titles to bills, thereby tipping their hand that this is everything about optics and nothing about the substance of crime protection, nothing about more resources for the RCMP and nothing about more resources for local law enforcement, but everything about positioning themselves with regard to their political Reform Party base.

When we realize that police officers are asking us to keep the gun registry, when we realize that people who work in the prisons are saying we have to maintain some hope that people can get out eventually because if we do not it is going to make their lives a lot worse. Imagine if the Conservatives had their wish, that we went to the American style system with 125 year sentences, when people have no hope of getting out, what does that do for the risks involved for the people who work in prisons? It makes it a lot worse. Why do we think the Canadian Bar Association is imploring Parliament not to play these petty political games?

Do the Conservatives care? Absolutely not. Are they concerned about law and order? Baloney. They could not care less about law and order and if they thought about it for one second, they would be doing anything but dismantling the gun registry as they would purport to do because they would ensure it remained an important tool in the hands of police officers across Canada.

All this is about, as is the case with so many of their other bills, is trying to make people believe, going to the extent of changing the title of the bill to make it an advertisement for their right-wing policies as opposed to something substantive, is that the Conservatives are doing something on law and order when they have done nothing.

In fact, they cut the salaries of the RCMP once they had voted for them. That is the reality of what the Conservatives have done. They talk out of one side of their mouth to say that they are there for law and order, they scrap the gun registry and they lower the salaries of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are not there for law and order; they are there for themselves. But they know that they have a political base that cares about this, so they come up with this type of bill where they actually stick in a title that is a sop to their Reform Party base saying they are finally doing the stuff they promised they would do.

Last year the Conservatives had a bill that had a title dealing with trafficking in humans. Actually most people on this side supported it. I voted for it because I thought it sent the right signal, but in an important parliamentary debate some colleagues in the House thought there were too many problems with the bill in terms of the law, the charter of rights and other substantive issues. There were concerns and doing what they were sent here to do, they voted against that bill.

What was particularly galling was having a debate on a bill whose grandiose title was yet another attempt to change reality by referring to trafficking in humans. The debates were interesting, but many experts said there might be a problem.

I voted in favour of the bill because I thought it sent the right signal, but other colleagues decided to vote against it. What happened? The Conservatives used taxpayers' money to send out flyers. These are the same flyers that made the headlines recently in terms of the right to send out ten percenters at great expense to the taxpayer. I saw it. It was quite extraordinary grandstanding.

I have been in politics for a long time and I do not believe I have ever seen anything like it. On the cover page we see an empty swing. It is not a regular swing with a flat board, but a baby swing for a child that is too small to walk. It was an empty swing and the back of an adult walking away with a child.

They individually attacked, one by one, the hon. members who voted against this bill. I did not share their point of view, as I just said, but I voted in favour of this bill. It was an informed decision. I am a lawyer. I looked at this bill and I thought it sent an important signal even though, substantively, I was not convinced that it would produce the effect suggested in their ad. However, when I saw these meanspirited attacks I realized that this had everything to do with maligning public perception of the opponent and nothing to do with the matter at hand.

They like to teach lessons. They say that public money must be spent carefully. All this work is being carried out with public money. They are spending $100 million in public money on infrastructure signs, which are often printed in the United States. Unbelievable. It is bad enough that we have to live with the U.S. Buy American Act, which shuts out Canadian companies. But they are dumb enough to have our work done in the United States. The Conservatives are having the signs for Canada's infrastructure program made in the United States. It is in the same vein as what we are talking about today.

Most experts who are familiar with the prison system and have compared sentences in Canada with those in other countries, categorically disagree with the Conservatives that Bill C-36 has anything to do with tougher sentences and with families. Every time they rehash one of the few cases in Canadian history of an individual, a serial killer, who was a recidivist. But the fact remains that it no longer even applied to someone in this category.

That does not prevent them from rising, time after time, with a tremor in their voices, to ask questions such as the one we just heard and demand: “Why are you against the victims? Why do you want them to suffer a second time.”

The only people suffering from this rhetoric is a public tired of a government that, four years later, has not yet understood that it is no longer in opposition.

I would like to tell my colleagues about the time I was a member of a party that had been in opposition for nine long years in Quebec. When we finally came to power, some smart alecks decided to take some elements of our platform and begin to put together a law with a title that had these kinds of suggestions. It is not just a bill to amend the Criminal Code, it is a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to send a message that there will be more serious time for the most serious crimes, and so forth.

Luckily there were some adults in the room who said that it was tempting, that it sounded good, but, as the Interpretation Act states, the title is part of the legislation, somewhat like the preamble is part of the laws that still have one and, on occasion, is used by the courts to interpret the legislation.

The very fact that they are playing this game shows what little respect they have for the institution. Coming up with a bogus name that would never appear anywhere, but simply serves as an ad for their own purposes leaves us in no doubt about where they are coming from.

They are showing their true colours. It is a pure and simple attempt to win the votes of a certain segment of the population that is very susceptible to these kinds of comments. I will say this to those who might be tempted to fall for the Conservatives' siren songs. How is it that the same Conservatives, who are trying to convince them that they are for law and order, are going against the clear wishes of Canadian police forces regarding maintaining the firearms registry? This registry protects police officers and is an important tool to fight crime. The Conservatives say they want to fight crime, but why do they say one thing and do another?

Why, when it comes to determining whether we will make changes to take away any hope from a prisoner, are the Conservatives playing with public safety instead of taking action? This hope could mean that a prisoner behaves better in prison, and unlike what they have claimed, it does not negatively affect families. Society would not take away any possible chance of rehabilitation.

Let us spend a few moments considering the men and women who work in prisons. This will make their lives more dangerous. Let us spend a few moments considering the police officers who have to deal with certain individuals.

The Conservatives recently revealed another item on their wish list: consecutive sentencing, like in the United States. We will end up with crazy American-style sentences for 125 years in jail, which is longer than anyone has ever lived, but they do not think it is a problem. They want to copy the American model and convince themselves and the public that their goal is to provide better protection. There will always be some people who are willing to accept such arguments.

When one is in Parliament dealing with that kind of demagoguery, one is tempted to say that the last thing we should do is talk about it because that would allow them to achieve their goal. No doubt some of them are happy to hear people speak the title they wanted to give this bill.

Personally, I have more faith in the intelligence of voters. I would far prefer to draw attention to this flaw and eliminate this kind of playing with people's emotions on issues like protecting the public and fighting crime. We must denounce this flaw, which involves using our parliamentary institutions for blatantly partisan purposes that have nothing to do with protecting the public. We need to say what this is all about, so people can make an informed decision during the next election.

I am pleased to rise here this evening and to say loud and clear that I am not impressed by the Conservatives. The Conservatives will not have the opportunity to intimidate or frighten the people of my riding, people whom I trust.

This bill will make life more dangerous for the men and women who work in prisons. The Canadian Bar Association, which represents all lawyers and notaries in Canada, has publicly announced its firm opposition to this kind of demagoguery. It did an excellent job of revealing the real intentions behind this.

This bill is part of a series of measures the Conservatives are trying to sell as action to ensure law and order, when in reality, it is nothing more than political marketing. They are not taking any concrete action to enhance public protection. They are simply acting in a very partisan way, for their own interests and with one specific goal in mind: pandering to their partisan political base.

In our opinion, if Bill C-36 were to pass, it would be a definite step backwards in terms of law and order, especially for people who work in law enforcement.

Far from being intimidated by this type of attempt to play with people's sentiments and to sell something as being in favour of law and order, it is our intention today to say that when the Canadian Bar Association comes out against this type of effort saying that it has nothing to do with law and order and everything to do with the political posturing of the Conservatives, when we see the people who work in carceral milieu, in the penitentiaries for example, saying that it would make their lives more dangerous if we were to remove the faint hope for people who are there, and when we hear the speeches about the victims and the questions about why we are opposed to the victims, we realize that it is all the same register. It all has to do with political posturing and salesmanship and nothing to do with the substance of the file.

The temptation, of course, when one realizes that this is the constant game being played by the Conservatives, is to tell oneself that it gets quite nasty. One need only look at the types of ten percenters and the types of personal attacks they send out. If this is billed as being serious time for the most serious crime, the next attack from the Conservatives will be to tell Canadians that their MP is opposed to having serious time for the most serious crime. They will turn it into another political attack.

I say that we should let them go ahead. They are seriously underestimating the intelligence of Canadians. Removing even the faintest hope for people who are in prison on long terms, which Canada does indeed impose, is the best way to make less secure the lives of the women and the men working in our penitentiaries for example. It is the best way to ensure, with the types of more than life sentences that the Conservatives are seeking to impose with other legislation, like the American system, that life inside will be far more dangerous for everyone.

We have a system in Canada that is balanced, that has always been balanced and that is built on a structured, intelligent analysis of the real needs of our society. What we have here is none of the above. What we have is pure demagoguery, a sop to the Reform Party base and that is why we will proudly stand and vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked about victims and queried rhetorically how Bill C-36 would help victims.

Members will undoubtedly know that individuals who apply under the faint hope clause have been convicted of a crime that carries a sentence of life imprisonment. Typically, we are talking about people who have been convicted of murder and, therefore, their victims, sadly, cannot speak for themselves, but their families can.

I sit on the justice committee and we heard from many families of victims who were all in favour of this legislation because they believe they were revictimized.

There is a principle in criminal law that an accused cannot face double jeopardy but the families tell us that they face double and sometimes triple jeopardy when they are faced with serial applications for faint hope when the families must go back and relive the horror of the loved one who was taken from them.

My question for the member has to do with his comment regarding the long gun registry. He seemed to suggest that this government was not serious when we said that we would be tough on crime because we voted in principle at second reading to repeal the long gun registry. He seems to have some concern with that.

Does the member really believe that long guns, shotguns and .22s are used in the commission of crimes?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing that anyone who has lived long enough to get themselves elected to the House would be able to formulate a question such as that one, to ask whether or not long guns are actually used in the commission of crime.

Of course they are. We can look at the statistics. That is the demagoguery. That is what we are dealing with here. The police across Canada consult the registry 40,000 times a day. They need it to do their jobs safely.

Those same high priests of law and order are not listening to the very women and men who are out there actually applying the law and maintaining order across Canada. That is the hypocrisy.

With regard to the faint hope clause, the member should remember what the Canadian Bar Association said. This is not some lobby group. This is not one of the parties against the other. Too many people believe that the faint hope clause simply allows those convicted of murder to be released after serving only 15 years of their sentence. The CBA section urges the government to set the record straight rather than enacting legislation based upon misinformation. That is a straight shot at the Conservatives by none other than the Canadian Bar Association. It is well deserved. It is a campaign based on misinformation and demagoguery.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this subject is one that seems to come up in every Parliament. The numbers do not much change because it is very rare that anyone gets out under the faint hope clause. However, there are certainly circumstances. I know from the work I have done on fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol-related birth defects, many people in the jails of Canada have committed very serious crimes and families of victims are very distraught and will never be the same again.

However, in our system, people who have mental incapacities have been put in jail. Being in jail will not help them. There is no rehabilitation for mental illness. There is no money to do it. In some cases such as fetal alcohol syndrome, it is not even a situation that can be rehabilitated.

Could the member comment on this? I believe Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan did a survey of their own of the provincial institutions and found that about 40% of the inmates in those prisons suffered from some mental illness. The minister of justice of the day, Anne McLellan, said that it was similar in federal institutions.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would prefer to stay within the subject matter before us today, although the subject of fetal alcohol syndrome is such an important one. I sincerely hope that the work being done, for example by people such as Brian McInnis in Toronto, to ensure that alcohol bottles contain proper warnings with regard to the possible effects of alcohol continues. However, it is another debate for another time with regard to what we are doing today.

Today we are dealing with something called the faint hope clause, where the Conservatives purport to be changing the bill to provide tougher sentences for the worst crimes. The people who have taken the trouble to look at the bill have concluded that it does nothing with regard to what it purports to do. That is why the Canadian Bar Association has told the government that what it is doing is based on misinformation. Those are tough words coming from the Canadian Bar Association and the government should listen to it, but of course it will not. This has everything to do with playing to its Reform Party base and nothing to do with public protection.

With regard to the long gun registry, it is the same thing. Police across Canada have been saying, “Please maintain the registry”. The very people who are in charge of law and order are asking the government to keep the registry. The government that claims to be in favour of law and order wants to scrap it, saying it costs too much. That is a ridiculous argument. Now that it has cost probably far too much, because of the incompetent Liberals who put it in place, the last thing we should do is scrap it because that is adding insult to injury to the taxpayers who paid for it in the first place and to the police who are using it every day.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the member for Outremont for his very coherent and strong words about this bill. I would agree with him entirely that when we read the title, the serious time for serious crime act, immediately it tells us what the bill is all about.

What I find most ironic is that when we look into the history of the faint hope clause and when it was brought in, which was in 1976, one of the reasons it was added to the Criminal Code, and it was done at a time in connection with the abolition of the death penality, was in the hopes that it would provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves.

I have not heard the Conservatives use that word. They are all in favour of victims' rights and that is very important, but this is about our justice system overall. This issue of rehabilitation and the fact that we are providing protection for prison guards was one of the reasons this clause was put into the Criminal Code in 1976.

Would the member comment on that?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right and it makes a lot of sense.

We can understand that if people have been incarcerated for, let us say, a 25 year term, behaving properly and not behaving violently becomes one of the things that can give them, and this is the reason why it is called the faint hope clause, a faint hope that perhaps by making life easier on people around them, by making the carceral milieu one that would be safer, they have the possibility not to drag the victims back before the courts as they would suggest on the other side, but to go before a judge, to go before a jury of 12 people. They have to be unanimous that he or she can even make the application.

The fact is, contrary to what the Conservatives would have it be, this is about providing a way to have an influence on people's behaviour once they are in prison. There are very few cases where this has been applied successfully. They are extremely rare, but at the very least, we should listen to the men and women who work in the penitentiaries and do everything we can to make their lives safer. Removing the faint hope clause makes their lives more dangerous.

A lot of this is based on misinformation. It is not just us who are saying it. It is also the Canadian Bar Association.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want a point of clarification. Actually, my comments are for the member for Edmonton—Strathcona with regard to a question she had from one of her colleagues. I think she would want to set the record straight on this.

She mused that the law had been changed and that multiple murderers were not eligible for the faint hope clause. That law changed I believe in 1996 or 1997, predating Clifford Olson, who she associated with her comments. In fact, Clifford Olson as recently as 2006 applied for the faint hope clause.

I am sure she would want to set the record straight at a future date in this debate in respect the victims of Clifford—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I do not know if the hon. member for Outremont wants to respond the question.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question was addressed to someone else, who has not made her speech yet. My colleague will be more than able to answer it because she was right in what she said.

Speaking of my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, having witnessed the sexist remarks by the Minister of the Environment today, I can only say that if these big, strong defenders of rights were only interested in defending charter rights, including the equality of men and women, perhaps we would hear less sexist remarks like the one—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36 on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of this bill at third reading, even though we supported the bill in principle at second reading in order to send it to committee so that witnesses could be heard and could enlighten the government about the bill's scope and merits. It appears that, as my NDP colleague, the member for Outremont, mentioned in his speech, clearly major witnesses such as the Association des avocats de la défense and the Canadian Bar Association vigorously opposed this bill. Having heard the witnesses and thoroughly reviewed the bill in committee, the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill at third reading.

Quite simply, we also feel that this bill is not warranted. Once again, the Conservative government is using smoke and mirrors to try to make people believe that it is getting tough on crime and that is it in favour of maintaining order and strict public morals. It is introducing a whole raft of bills whose application is really quite doubtful. Bill C-36 is a case in point.

We know that the bill addresses the most serious crimes, such as premeditated murder, that have the biggest impact on victims and affect the population as a whole. We recognize that. Individuals sentenced to life in prison can apply for parole after a certain length of time, depending on whether they have been convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder. We recognize that in the hierarchy of crimes, these are very serious crimes. That is why these major crimes carry the stiffest penalties and, as I said earlier, are punished by life in prison.

Sometimes sentences are too lenient and parole is too lax, for instance, parole after one sixth of the sentence has been served, which we have right now and which could benefit white collar criminals because this government decided to take its responsibilities. In Quebec, we have the Norbourg affair and the Vincent Lacroix affair. The latter will be released after serving one sixth of his sentence with exorbitant amounts of money that is probably being kept in some tax haven somewhere such as Barbados, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos or Trinidad and Tobago. He is going to live the sweet life after serving a few months in prison and depriving honest people of their income. That might have been the only amount of money they were able to set aside; a little nest egg they managed to build up over years of hard work. It was not necessarily multi-millionaires that Vincent Lacroix bilked. In most of the 9,200 cases, it was ordinary people who had worked their entire lives. There was even the case of two young people who had inherited money from their parents after they died in an automobile accident. That money and the insurance settlement they received went up in smoke because of Vincent Lacroix's malicious acts.

We agree that parole should not be too lax because that undermines the credibility of the justice system and fuels the impression that criminals are treated better than victims. I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois sides with the victims and not with the criminals, as the demagogues opposite accuse us whenever we oppose a law and order bill on this government's agenda.

That is what happened with the Afghanistan issue: we have been accused of being on the Taliban's side. That is no joke. That is how the Conservatives work. That is demagoguery, and that is why this government is so dangerous. This government tries to manipulate public opinion. Fortunately, those listening can tell the difference between true and false.

This bill would repeal a provision that gives an offender sentenced to 20 or 25 years the opportunity for a hearing after 15 years. I am talking about a criminal who is sentenced to life in prison with a chance to apply for parole after 15 years.

The current Criminal Code contains the faint hope clause, which gives offenders a chance to apply for parole after 15 years. Parole officers are not the ones who decide. The offender has to apply to a judge and a 12-member jury, a jury of 12 ordinary citizens who must decide, based on time served, evidence of character, and statements from psychiatrists, social workers, experts and so on, whether the individual might be eligible for early parole.

That is what the faint hope clause is about. The Conservatives want to pursue their law and order agenda by repealing this subsection, which is actually working pretty well. That is what defence lawyers told us in committee. The Canadian Bar Association told us that the system works. The association told the Conservatives that the only reason they are trying to pass this kind of bill is that they are trying to set the agenda for the next election.

Some cases are successful. Here is an example. If Bill C-36 is passed, people will not have a chance to apply for parole. This particular case involves a man I know, a lawyer named Michel Dunn from Chicoutimi, with whom I studied at the Chicoutimi seminary and with whom I worked in housekeeping at the Chicoutimi hospital, to pay my way through university. He studied law at Laval University. He got into some shady financial trouble and killed his law partner, Serge McNicoll, when the two were shooting clay pigeons on a Lac-Saint-Jean beach at Saint-Henri-de-Taillon or Sainte-Monique-de-Honfleur, I do not remember exactly.

He was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. After 15 years, he used the faint hope clause to get a hearing, and was paroled. Now, Michel Dunn is an in-reach worker and helps criminals return to society. His is a success story. During his years of incarceration, his behaviour was impeccable. He was surrounded by hardened criminals. He was in a very difficult place, and he helped his fellow inmates during their incarceration.

Indirectly, he also helped our corrections officers who are dedicated to ensuring that inmates can, in some cases, prepare to return to society. That is part of the role of a corrections officer. Two of my colleagues have penitentiaries in their ridings: the Port-Cartier penitentiary, in the riding of the member for Manicouagan, and the La Macaza penitentiary, in the riding of the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

We do not acknowledge our corrections officers often enough. I have read documents from corrections officers who felt as though they were in prison themselves. These are difficult working conditions. There is constant stress. They have to watch over people who have nothing left to lose, people who were convicted of multiple murders. All they have left is to make the lives of everyone inside those walls miserable. I would like to take this opportunity to salute our corrections officers, those who work in both in federal and Quebec prisons.

I would like to share what the Association québécoise des avocats de la défense told us. As the members know, I am a lawyer. I practised for only a year and a half, and I do not consider myself a leading expert in law. One of my friends, Jean Asselin, from Quebec City, is a member of the Association québécoise des avocats de la défense. The legal community is quite discouraged about the attitude of this Conservative government, which is missing the mark and aiming in the wrong direction. The Association québécoise des avocats de la défense said it believes that this bill is merely part of an election strategy and that it promises greater public safety under false pretenses.

On the other hand, although we understand the reactions of certain victims' families who agree with the bill, the fact remains that our decision as to whether or not this bill should pass must be analyzed in an impartial context that is not swayed by emotions.

The Canadian Bar Association opposes Bill C-36 because it believes that the faint hope clause is important in the overall sentencing process, especially for sentencing in murder cases.

I would say that with their separate bills the Conservatives have adopted a cafeteria approach. It is like saying I will have soup today, I will have salad tomorrow. I will have dessert today, I will have fruit salad tomorrow. It is a piecemeal approach that is missing the mark, as I was saying earlier. We have to look at the penal system and the Criminal Code as a whole.

At present the Conservatives' only goal is to find bills that address certain events or circumstances, mostly the ones that have been in the media, and then to take action aimed at being elected.

I will repeat: when you do not agree with them, when you have a different opinion, you are immediately identified as someone who supports criminals, just the way they said we supported the Taliban. Unbelievable.

In closing, because I see that my time is running out and I wish to have some left to answer questions, we believe that the Bloc Québécois is on the right track and, in that sense, we agree with the NDP position. I hope that our Liberal colleagues will listen to reason and not be influenced by the siren songs and the advocates of those opposite, on the Conservative side. I believe that the Liberal party has a progressive and forward-thinking tradition, as its name implies.

I am asking my Liberal colleagues to vote with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to prevent this pointless bill from succeeding at third reading.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was clear and unequivocal that he and his party would be voting against Bill C-36 at third reading. He indicated support for that position from lawyers, primarily criminal defence lawyers, bar associations and correctional officers. He said that he respects correctional officers, as do I. There are many who live in my riding.

He talked about offenders, specifically one who was a successful applicant under the faint hope clause. However, he did not talk about two other groups that need to be talked about in this debate. One group is the victims, or mostly the families of victims, because unfortunately, the actual victims are deceased, and the other group is the public.

When the member stands and votes no to Bill C-36, what will he be saying to the families whose loved ones were the victims of premeditated murder? What will he be saying to the public who does not believe that serving 15 or 16 years in jail is appropriate for premeditated first degree murder?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear: we are talking about crimes and murders punishable by life in prison. As my colleague rightly said, often the murder victim is dead and it is the family that continues to suffer.

When a judge declares a person guilty of murder and sentences him to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, justice has been served to the victim. However, in 15 years of detention, an inmate may display exemplary behaviour. I gave the example of Michel Dunn. In prison, his behaviour was exemplary. He served 15 years in prison. The judge delivered the sentence and punished him for the crime. We do not want to minimize the impact of the crime and say that it was just a murder and nothing serious. We are sensitive to that and that is the reason for life sentences.

The faint hope clause allows an inmate to be released after 15 years of good behaviour. The best evidence that the public is not being punished as well, is that the murderer's lawyer pleads before a judge, who upholds the law, and before a jury of 12 people. This does not happen before an administrative tribunal like the parole board or before a judge alone. The Criminal Code provides that 12 citizens will decide on the release of an individual after 15 years.

In a trial by jury structure, everyday people—just regular folks—are randomly selected from the voters list to make the decision about parole after 15 years. These 12 people are part of the general public.

The two groups my colleague is concerned about are very well served. The inmates serve 15 years instead of 20 or 25 years. While we are at it, perhaps we should add some corporal punishment. A few lashes would not hurt. Let us be serious; they have gone too far.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I ask the question of the hon. member, I would like to thank him for his obviously very heartfelt and cogent comments. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for giving me the chance to clarify. I want to make it clear of course that he is correct. Clifford Olson was convicted before 1997 and so he is not exempted from the ability to apply. I clearly meant a Clifford Olson-type accused. Since 1997 a multiple murderer cannot apply under the faint hope clause, and so that should be. I am in agreement with that.

I campaigned for this office on a law and order campaign, and law and order for the environment. I find it incredulous that the party across the way would criticize my party and other parties for not believing in law and order. I sat in this House and watched while we passed important amendments to major Canadian federal environmental statutes to increase the penalties and yet, this government put forward a law so that lesser penalties would be applied to environmental infractions on Indian reserves. So, I think perhaps the other side is not very consistent in its law and order agenda either.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he could reply to this. It has occurred to me that under the faint hope clause it actually gives the opportunity for those who may have been victims of a crime to have the opportunity to come forward and speak again about whether or not they have second thoughts, whether or not they would like to welcome the accused back into their family, or the community impacted.

If we take away the faint hope clause, we take away the entire opportunity for forgiveness within the system and some kind of opportunity for the accused to actually come to the family of the victim or the community of the victim and at least speak to that matter.

I also wonder if the member could speak to the possibility that there may well be occasions where this faint hope clause actually gives the opportunity to at least be revisited, even if the decision remains the same and the prisoner remains in prison. We have to remember that it is a life sentence, but it is 25 years. There is nothing magical in the 25-year number, and it should be open for review by the community, by the jury, and by the court.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond more to the second part of the question. It seemed as though my colleague had not finished a debate with her Conservative neighbour opposite. I did not think that what she was saying had much to do with me. In fact, I even thought of leaving.

As for the second part of her question, I would say that, given that the system is adversarial, both sides can make their case. People have the opportunity to express their views, and the victims can be heard.

I would like to repeat what I said, which is that this second chance helps promote the reintegration of inmates. It also helps make them much more cooperative during their incarceration.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on his very pertinent remarks, which, I feel, clearly explain why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

In addition, my colleague pointed out that the Conservative Party's positions are very disconcerting. Perhaps he could speak to the issue of the Conservative Party's behaviour regarding the motion introduced in this House by the Bloc Québécois to proceed quickly with the vote on eliminating the possibility of parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. The opposition was berated again today in this House for not wanting to eliminate the possibility of parole after one-sixth of a sentence.

I would like my colleague to speak to this issue to show the people who are watching just how disingenuous the Conservatives' position is.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has one minute to respond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have become experts at the “outside the Church there is no salvation” approach. As I said earlier, if we do not agree with them, it means that we are the bad guys.

Once again, the Conservatives could have agreed to the quick passage of the bill regarding white collar criminals. When it comes to parliamentary rules, as long as it is not against public order and good morals, we can quickly pass any amendment by unanimous consent. That is what the Conservatives did not want to do for the bill regarding parole after one sixth of a sentence has been served, as in the Vincent Lacroix case.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver East has two or three minutes to make some comments on this bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to third reading of Bill C-36.

I spoke in the House at second reading and during that debate I expressed my very serious concerns about the principles of this bill and what it would do to our justice system. When the bill went back to committee, I know the NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, put forward some amendments to the bill that would improve the support and involvement of victims and family members. Unfortunately, those amendments were not allowed. Now the bill is back before the House at third reading. I must say the concerns that I and others have expressed here today not only remain but may be stronger than ever.

After listening to the debate today in the House, what really troubles me is that the response from the Conservative government on any problem or serious issue it sees in our society is that there always has to be a tougher sentence. Everything is answered in its mind and world as a tougher sentence.

What we are dealing with here is the justice system as a whole. I heard one of the Conservative members say that it seems to be all about the offender. No, it is not about the offender. It is about our justice system, whether we have balance in it and whether we are doing things that actually help rehabilitate people.

When people have committed crimes, are convicted and sent to prison, they are serving time for that crime, but it is also about rehabilitation. I really have not heard that word today on the Conservative side.

We are hearing in the debate today that there are many members who are very concerned about this bill because it is fundamentally going to change the kinds of balances we have in our justice system, and for that reason we are—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to conclude, we cannot—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members can see the picture I am trying to paint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joseph Volpe]

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

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

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

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

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to the motion at third reading of Bill C-36.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #134

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I declare the amendment lost.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question is on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #135

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)