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

[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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a point of privilege. I'm pressing to have it dealt with because the rules require any point of privilege to be raised at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Chair, this involves information from me and Mr. Lemay, so this point of privilege isn't just mine. It's at least his, and realistically it's the whole committee's.

We had both sought specific information from Mr. Don Head--he's head of Corrections Canada--in the period of time where he was before us on November 4. We both had very specific questions and data we required. At the end of that session with Mr. Head, he made it very clear--and I've got the blues here if somebody wants me to read it to him--that he undertook, those are the words that he used, to provide this committee with that information. He was to provide that, and he said he needed one to two weeks. That was sufficient time for us to receive it and use it in the clause-by-clause phase of Bill C-36. In fact, it was not received from him by the time we dealt with clause-by-clause a week ago today.

I'm led to believe both from the clerk of the committee and from my discussion with Mr. Lukiwski, the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party, that he gave it to the Minister of Public Safety and National Security. Mr. Lukiwski confirmed early this afternoon that in fact the minister had it, has had it since at least last week, last Monday, has not seen it, is reviewing it, and will provide it to us in a week's time.

Mr. Chair, I think you've been around here long enough, as have most of the people sitting here today, to know that this process is not the proper process. It's one that in fact offends the work we as a committee are supposed to perform. It offends our right to information from the public service in a timely fashion that we were led to believe was there.

I want this committee to make a report and I've actually prepared that report. It's a short one of only four paragraphs. It basically sets out the history. I didn't make reference to Mr. Lukiwski because I prepared it before I had the opportunity to speak to him or he had an opportunity to speak to me. But it sets out the facts that I've just recounted, that there has been direct interference by the minister in a situation where he should not have had any involvement at all. It has made it impossible for this committee to use that data that we had sought from Mr. Head and Corrections Canada in our discussion around BillC-36, both in committee at clause-by-clause and then today in the House when we were dealing with it at report stage and third reading stage.

So what I need is a report from this committee to be given to the House overnight, so it's there in the morning, so that I can then pursue my claim for privilege in front of the Speaker tomorrow morning when I am speaking to Bill C-36.

Mr. Chair, in that regard so we're clear on this, the Speaker cannot entertain my motion with regard to privilege without hearing from the committee. The rules are quite clear on that, that he can't reach into the committee, he can't see what happened at the committee. We have to advise him of that, and that's the purpose of my motion today, to have this information passed by way of a report to the committee overnight so that it will be in front of him tomorrow morning when I move my motion on privilege.

I think those are basically the facts, so I would like to proceed on that basis. As I say, I have the wording. I can read it all again if you wish me to. I have extra copies. I did not have time to translate it, but I have extra copies of the report as I would want it presented to the House tomorrow morning and voted on this evening by this committee.

Thank you.

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.

Justice

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that those who commit murder must face serious consequences when they do so, which is why our government introduced legislation in this House, Bill C-36, which is being debated today in the House of Commons. This legislation would put an end to the loophole for lifers. Under this legislation, criminals who commit first or second degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole.

We are supporting families who do not want to be victimized all over again at Parole Board hearings, and we stand by the victims.

The Liberals and the NDP have not made clear where they stand on this legislation. Canadians support it. We call on them to support it too.

Criminal Code

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that murderers must serve serious time for the most serious crimes. Our government's Bill C-36 repeals the faint hope clause. This means that criminals who commit first or second degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole, and those currently serving a life sentence or awaiting sentencing would face tougher rules when they apply for early parole.

By ending faint hope reviews, we will spare families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive their losses over and over again. This Conservative government is continuing to follow through on its tackling crime agenda. We are standing up for the victims of crime and we are putting the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.

We hope that for once the Liberal leader will stand up for victims in this country by ensuring that this bill gets passed. Canadians can count on this government and the Prime Minister to stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.

Justice

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that, on justice issues, Liberal and Bloc members defend the rights of criminals. Fortunately, Canadians know that they can count on our Conservative government to defend the rights of victims.

Our government believes that murderers must serve tougher sentences for the most serious crimes.

Bill C-36 would eliminate the faint hope clause. Criminals who commit first or second degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. We do not want families to have to go through the pain of attending repeated parole hearings and having to relive their losses over and over.

We hope that, for once, the Liberal and Bloc members will stand up for the victims in this country by supporting this bill.

Our government works in favour of those Quebeckers and Canadians who obey the law.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding the proposed amendments to what is known as the faint hope clause under the Criminal Code for those sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for stated periods of time.

First, it has to be understood that what we are talking about is literally a faint hope, very faint, in fact. As of April 2008, there were 4,429 prisoners serving life sentences. We can compare that to the number of people who have actually obtained parole under the faint hope clause for the last 20 years, which is 131. We are not talking about opening the prison doors and letting everybody out. We are talking about the mere possibility of someone having an opportunity to seek parole.

There is a very stringent process in place that allows for this very faint hope. It involves at least three steps, probably more. I will outline the three most significant steps that have to take place.

For example, if someone is sentenced to life without any possibility of parole, the first criterion is that there must be at least 15 years of the sentence served. We are not talking about someone who committed a murder, has been in jail for a few years and is trying to get a free pass out. We are talking about someone who has served at least 15 years in jail, which is in fact longer than the average time spent in custody of anyone sentenced to life in New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, Belgium and Australia, for example. We are talking about people who have already served at least 15 years.

The first thing that has to be done is to convince the chief justice of the province or territory in which the conviction took place that there is a reasonable prospect the application for review would succeed. If that test is not met, there is no opportunity to get parole. If the chief justice, or whoever has been designated, is satisfied there is a reasonable prospect, then it goes to the next step.

The justice first considers the character of the applicant, the conduct of the applicant while serving the 15 years plus that has already been served, and the nature of the offence. Those concerned about people who are guilty of serial murder will not be surprised if it would prevent someone from getting early parole. Also considered is any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of a hearing under the section and any other matters that the justice considers relevant.

If an inmate meets those criteria and a provincial or territorial chief justice thinks there is a reasonable prospect the review might succeed, it then goes to a jury. Whatever opinions the Conservatives have about justices, I would hope they would have faith in our jury system. Our system depends on a person having a trial by jury of his or her peers. If an individual happens to get past the first hurdle, then there has to be a unanimous decision by 12 members of the jury that the person ought to have the period of parole ineligibility reduced.

For example, if the eligibility for parole is set at 25 years and 12 members of a jury unanimously agree, they can say they are satisfied that the period of eligibility for parole can be reduced, and not only that, they get to say by how much. They can say they agree that the person should have an opportunity to apply for earlier parole, but it can only be reduced by two years or three years or five years. It is the jury's decision in both of those cases. A unanimous decision is needed for the possibility of reducing the parole and a decision of two-thirds of the jury is needed in determining the number of years.

All that does, after those two hurdles, is give the individual a right to apply to the National Parole Board. There is no automatic parole. That just allows the Parole Board to even consider an application from an individual who has been given a long sentence.

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 then later by a jury in a separate hearing simply advances the date on which the offender will be eligible to apply for parole.

When people talk about our system not being tough on criminals, we have to compare our situation with countries around the world. In Canada the average time a person is incarcerated is the highest in all countries surveyed, including the United States, where the average life sentence means someone serves 18.5 years. In Australia it is 14.8. In New Zealand it is 11. In Sweden it is 12. In Belgium it is 12.7. Canada, compared to the United States with 18.5, is 28.4 years. That is the average amount of time someone serves if he or she is given a life sentence in our country. That is for first degree murder. Therefore, we are talking about a very faint hope indeed.

The importance of the faint hope has been underlined by the John Howard Society, for example. It says that the availability of the faint hope clause may provide incentive for prisoners to rehabilitate themselves. It also adds that the repeal of the clause allowing faint hope could lead to increased violence in Canada's prisons. It says that if one takes away even a faint hope, there is a potential that the incentive to behave well will go with it.

I am particularly moved by the example described by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh about an individual who changed his mind when he heard the story of one individual who had left the prison system under the faint hope clause and turned himself into an advocate for integrating other inmates and prisoners back into society. He had dedicated his life, in fact, since his release to doing that. That is an example of what can happen.

I am obviously not saying that everybody who ever gets out under the faint hope clause is a paragon of virtue. Let us face it, these individuals may have rehabilitated themselves enough to convince the Parole Board, after convincing a justice and a jury, that they were not a threat to society. They will at least be able to lead their lives outside of prison. However, this is an example of an individual who not only rehabilitated himself, but has now dedicated his life to the rehabilitation of others and to assist those who end up in prison for any number of reasons, such as getting caught in committing a crime. He helps to integrate them back into society and thereby protects all of us, protects Canadians because we have one more individual who has gone down the wrong path and is now able to rehabilitate others and help them lead useful and productive lives, which makes for a safer country.

There are lots of reasons why the faint hope clause should be maintained.

I see my time is up and it looks like we will head into statements very soon. Maybe there will not be time for questions and comments before the break, but I will leave that to the wisdom of yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Those are my comments at second reading. We have very serious concerns about these proposed reforms. We need to keep the faint hope clause.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in rising in the House to speak to the bill, I want it to be known that I oppose the bill. In the same way that I treat all the bills before the House, whether they are government bills or private member's bills, I endeavour to look to the factual base in forming my opinion. It has been brought to my attention in the review of the bill by a number of persons and organizations, and what stood out for me was the submission to the justice committee by the Canadian Bar Association.

The brief was presented by the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, which represents more than 37,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and law students across the country. It also includes not only defence lawyers, but prosecutors. That is very important. These are the professionals who work day in and day out, year by year in this area and are fully apprised of the facts of what is happening in the judicial system, including in the administration of the faint hope clause.

The Canadian Bar Association's testimony to the committee was very clear and it seems to be consistent with what the other members presented today in the House on the bill. The testimony was that the government's communications on Bill C-36 suggest there has been an increase in the number of offenders being released under the clause. However, that this is far from reality, which deeply concerns me. It is incumbent upon all members in the House that when we take a position on a bill, or if we draft a bill for presentation to the House for serious consideration, that it actually be based on fact. This is all the more critical when talking about a bill affecting criminal justice and affecting those who are subject to the system and people who have been victims of crime.

The brief by the Canadian Bar Association on Bill C-36 raised a number of concerns about the proposed reforms, in addition to the fact that it does not appear to be premised on a fact based appraisal, and that has been endorsed by all opposition parties. They have been extremely concerned that no proper factual information appears to have been tabled by the government in tabling the bill. That is a of great concern, particularly given the fact that the Department of Justice has undertaken a number of reviews and, presumably, those reviews should have been tabled for consideration by all members of that committee.

The Canadian Bar Association also testified that the government clearly had not assessed whether the proposed reforms would actually enhance the objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system. Obviously the very point of amending the Criminal Code, which is a critical law for peace and order in this country, makes it absolutely critical and incumbent upon the government to show that the change would improve the safety of citizens. The Conservatives do not appear to have done that. It seems it has been more from an emotional base.

It is my suggestion to the House that, given the importance of these bills, it is very critical that they be fact based because we are affecting people's rights, the rights of the people incarcerated, the rights of the people working in the prisons and the rights of people who may be victims of crime.

The Canadian Bar Association testified that Bill C-36 was unnecessary and would not improve community safety. This should be the first and foremost matter in the minds of members of the House when we consider an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. The very purpose of the bill is to provide for the safety of Canadians, to punish those who may break the law and to impose punishments appropriate to ensure that we do not have recidivism and to ensure deterrence.

It is also important for the House to consider that the jury system is a very important component of the Canadian judicial process. As the Canadian Bar Association pointed out in its brief, when we abolished the death penalty in 1976 and put in place the new system of first and second degree murder penalties, included within that provision was the system for sentencing, the inclusion of provisions for the consideration for parole and, most important, the provision that juries would first and foremost make that consideration before the application may go to the Parole Board. A very clear and thoughtful process was followed when this process was put in place.

However, it did not stop there. The process for the review of these offences has gone through careful scrutiny and review by the justice committee and various studies have been done. On a number of occasions they have been enhanced and made stricter.The decision to amend in 1997 also was based on the fact that of the 63 people who applied initially, 13 were rejected, 19 were allowed to go to the board and 6 of those denied by the board, but only one reoffended.

We must remember, as the Canadian Bar Association testified, that the 1997 amendment put in very strict procedures for considering the faint hope clause. It was precluded for multiple murderers. We should not be using those examples in considering this. It is not even possible under the faint hope clause.

The amendments introduced a screening process by the judge before it went to the jury and required unanimous jury recommendation. The House should note the importance of this provision. It is a jury of people of the community where the offence occurred that is considering the matter based on information on the offence, the character of the offender, how the offender has conducted himself or herself in prison, whether or not the offender is likely to reoffend, and information by the victim. It must be pointed out that that is optional. There is no requirement in law that any family member of the victim of a crime be required to testify. It is the family's option, but it is an important option, and a right and privilege to speak against the release of a particular prisoner. The jury must also unanimously recommend that the consideration may be made by the Parole Board.

The intent of the faint hope provision is to try to encourage the prisoner to show true remorse and to work hard at rehabilitation. That is an important part of our prison system. That is what sets us apart from a lot of regimes. Our regime is based on trying to rehabilitate every prisoner who goes into our system.

The hope is faint. There are many barriers to being able to obtain early release. We must remember that early release in many cases is very late in the game.

We also must remember that early parole is subject to a lifetime of supervision and that the parolee can be sent back for any transgression.

What is really troubling me is that the government seems intent on removing the parts of the judicial process where the jury is involved and where we actually work toward rehabilitation of prisoners. More important, the government has not seen fit to provide the resources to prevent crime. The most important thing we can do for victims of crime and future victims of crime is to prevent the occurrence of crime.

This past week I visited a youth emergency services program in my riding. It is an incredible program that is struggling to get appropriate resources. It takes in young people off the street, protects them from becoming victims of crime and tries to prevent them from becoming engaged in the criminal process. It is a commendable program where people dedicate themselves, and it is struggling to receive any federal funding.

Instead of trying to further punish and take our criminal system back to medieval times, I would encourage the government to look at the incredible process that we have developed over time. I would encourage the government to start redressing the frailties by properly financing our crime prevention programs. I encourage the government to put resources into those programs to give those who might otherwise become involved in serious crimes a chance to decide not to. That is the best way to serve our community and prevent crime. It is the best way to help those who may become the victims of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-36.

I will begin by reading a very short quote from a piece by the journalist Manon Cornellier published in Le Devoir. For my colleagues opposite who do not understand French and who do not read it, Le Devoir is a French-language newspaper published in Montreal. Ms. Cornellier is a journalist on the Hill and was present for our debates and speeches as well as the introduction of Bill C-36. Here is the quote in question:

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

If Bill C-36 is passed, I believe it is very likely that the answer to this question will be yes, that it will. What does an individual do when he no longer has a chance and has nothing to hope for?

I am truly convinced that my colleagues opposite have never gone into a prison and know nothing about criminal law because they are spouting utter nonsense before the Standing Committee on Justice. When I hear what is being said and the questions asked by some Conservative colleagues in this committee, I even wonder if they really passed their bar exams.

I am revolted by this morning's comments in support of passing Bill C-36. We are keenly aware that victims must be protected. I will repeat it for my colleagues opposite because the translation is slow. The Bloc Québécois agrees that victims must be protected. I will repeat it for my Liberal friends who are preparing to support Bill C-36: victims must be protected. However, adopting this bill will not protect the parents of victims. Unfortunately the victims were murdered. Murder in the first degree is the most heinous crime that can be committed by an individual, and it deserves the harshest punishment.

In Canada, the death penalty for someone found guilty of murder was abolished in 1976. I know that some Conservatives would like to see it reinstated, but that is not what we are debating today. They must stop making false claims and providing misleading information. It is not true that someone found guilty of first degree murder is sentenced to 25 years. When an individual is found guilty of first degree murder, he is sentenced to life in prison, which means until he dies. That is what a life sentence means. The Conservatives need to stop their disinformation.

Since 1976, prisoners have been allowed to apply for parole after 25 years, but they were sentenced to life imprisonment; that means life in prison. The Conservatives need to stop making the public believe that everyone will get out after 25 years, because it is not true. The statistics we have in front of us prove that.

The statistics date from April 9, 2009, and there must have been a few people sentenced for murder in the past few months. Let us round it off. There were 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences in Canada as of April 9. So they are not all out, and they will not all be out of prison. So when the Conservatives go all delusional and claim that Clifford Olson could be released, or that Bernardo could be released, they are not thinking about the parents of the victims. They need to stop. It is not true that Olson and Bernardo will be released, and this is why. This is what the Conservatives need to understand, because they have a lot of trouble understanding it, and some Liberals still have trouble with this issue. I will explain it, and I hope that it will be clear.

An individual is convicted of first-degree murder and immediately sentenced to life. This means that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. However, as things stand, that individual can turn to the courts after being in prison for 15 years. This is important, and it is what the Liberals introduced in 1976 when they amended the Criminal Code and abolished the death penalty. They introduced the current system, which is working very well. The Liberals and the Conservatives cannot say that it is not working well, because they have never provided any numbers.

I will now explain how the current system works. The individual is convicted and sent to prison, where he must serve at least 25 years.

After 15 years, if his good behaviour has been proven and attested, he can apply to the court. The Conservatives led us to believe that an individual could lie for 15 years in prison. Come on. It is obvious that the Conservatives never go into the penitentiaries. Some of them should visit institutions at least a few times a year to see how things work. They would see that inmates cannot lie with impunity, especially in a maximum security penitentiary. Individuals sentenced to 25 years or life are placed in maximum security facilities.

After 15 years, the individual must appear before a superior court judge in the place where he was convicted. I am going to go slowly, because the Conservatives think that this can be done anywhere in Canada where the individual is being held. That is not true; it is set out in the legislation. The inmate must appear where he was convicted, before the chief justice of the superior court, not just any judge, not a judge appointed by the Conservatives, but a real judge.

The judge in question will examine the application, have the individual appear and ask him to convince the judge to empanel a jury to consider his application. This is not an application for release. The judge does not have the authority to release the inmate, but only to empanel a jury. I will come back to this in a few minutes.

The individual appears before the superior court judge and tries to convince the judge that he has proof that he has changed. He can call the prison guards to testify and can do everything in his power to convince the judge to empanel a jury.

That is the first step, and very few get past it. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, we asked for numbers, and of course, if any of them had been flawed, we would have known, but they were all fine. So, the person appears before the court and convinces the judge. Then the judge empanels a 12-member jury in the place where the first degree murder was committed 15 years before.

The Conservatives need to stop saying that such an individual can try two or three times, because that is not true. That is disinformation. So, the judge empanels a jury of 12 people from the place where the murder was committed 15 years before, and then there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will translate that for my Conservative colleagues. It means that there has to be enough proof that there can be absolutely no doubt that the person appearing before the jury has changed his ways. The jury cannot free the prisoner. The only thing that the jury can do is say unanimously that he can request parole in a year or two, or three, or five. The jury decides. The jury does not let the prisoner go. The Conservatives are wrong again. They must be delirious. Maybe they have delirium tremens because they would have us all believe that the jury would not study anything and would just let the prisoner go. That is not what subsection 745.6 of the Criminal Code says. The jury has to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual has so completely changed his ways that he deserves to apply to the parole board.

What proof must be provided? The individual in question must provide some evidence. Criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, victims, victims' parents—given that the victim, of course, cannot testify—cousins, and the entire family, must explain how that individual has changed. I hope my Conservative colleagues are listening carefully. This will come as a surprise to them. I know they are not listening to me, but that is all right; at least it will be in the blues. Since 1976, 4,000 prisoners have been sentenced to life sentences. As of April 9, 2009, of the 265 applications submitted, 140 applicants had obtained a reduction in their parole ineligibility period.

This means that the 140 people in question obtained a reduction in the waiting period before they can apply to the parole board.

This brings us to the second step. They have convinced a jury. They jury has decided that the individual can apply to the National Parole Board in one, two or three years. It is up to the jury.

Then the individual goes before the parole board. My Conservative and Liberal friends who plan to vote for this bill should listen carefully; this is important. These are not my figures or the Bloc Québécois' figures; these are the National Parole Board's figures and they do not lie. Of the 127 applicants who were granted parole, 13 returned to prison, 3 were deported, 11 have died, one was out on bail, one was in temporary detention, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions. I think this bears repeating. I will set the record straight right now. We heard from people from the National Parole Board and the Department of the Solicitor General. They appeared before the committee and we asked them if any of the 13 people who returned to prison had returned for another murder, another manslaughter or another second degree murder. The answer is no. They all committed crimes like theft or shoplifting. Perhaps they failed to meet their parole conditions. Many Conservative and some Liberal members seem to think that when someone is granted parole, they sit at home, relaxing, with their feet up. That is not how it works.

The committee heard one of those individuals. What did we hear? All is not over for the 98 individuals who are on parole. Just remember what I was saying before. When someone is sentenced for first degree murder, they are sentenced to life. They are therefore on parole for as long as they are alive. For the rest of their days, the individual has to report to the parole board and has to stay on the straight and narrow and respect the law. Parole can be revoked at any time for a whole host of reasons.

I have pleaded similar cases and I know what I am talking about. For example, if an individual has to report to his parole officer every Tuesday at 9 a.m., and arrives at 9:30 a.m., a complaint will be filed and he will have to explain himself to the parole board. If he has to take training and does not show up for his classes, his parole is automatically revoked and he is returned to prison.

When the public is misled, those who spread the disinformation will get caught. And that is what is happening right now. What the current government is trying to do, probably with deliberate help from the Liberals, who are concerned about their dip in the polls when it comes to being tough on crime, is to destroy any faint hope an individual has of being released.

Bill C-36 proposes to fully eliminate the right of all offenders convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole on the day the amendment comes into force.

What that means is that inmates will become violent because they will no longer have any hope. What happens in penitentiaries when inmates have no hope? I hope that certain Conservatives, and especially certain Liberals who are about to vote in favour of this bill, will take a tour of a penitentiary to see what is going on. Individuals make themselves available to other individuals, often organized gangs inside the penitentiary, and become hired killers. It does not bother them because they know they will never get out. Parole officers have told us they are worried about increased violence in the penitentiaries if Bill C-36 is passed. Those are not just my words.

What else do they want? They want to protect the parents of victims and have them appear before the parole board as few times as possible. I do not agree with that position. I would say to the parents of victims that it is false to claim that they will be made to relive the same crime over and over, because only those individuals who have been rehabilitated can file an application.

Quite often, individuals who file an application—I have at least four examples—have already met with the victim's family in order to apologize, to speak to them or to find some way to heal the pain they have caused.

I will close by stating that Bill C-36 is a very bad bill. The consequences will not be felt today or tomorrow, but in five or ten years. At that point it will cause harm because we will have crushed an individual's hope. We will never support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the member had not done his homework. The member had stated that it was reported to him, so I informed him that the reports were incorrect.

If in fact the minutes of the November 16 meeting of the standing committee indicate what he has said, I will ensure that those minutes are corrected because every single member at that meeting knows very well that I did not vote on any of the questions that were put to the committee regarding Bill C-36, including whether or not the title should pass, whether the bill should pass, or whether 500 new copies should be printed. Therefore, I will see that those minutes are corrected to in fact reflect what took place in the committee.

I do not blame the member. He is quoting from what appears to be a perfectly valid transcript and based upon that, he made his statement in good faith, but I am informing the member that those transcripts are not correct. We have a meeting this afternoon. I will ask that they be corrected to reflect what actually took place, which is that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine did not vote on any of the votes on Bill C-36.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member actually read the transcripts of the justice committee, clause-by-clause voting, he would not see my name appear either in favour or opposed.

Therefore, when the member says that he has been told that I, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine voted against Bill C-36 at second reading, clause-by-clause, he has been misinformed.

I would beg the member, in future, not to repeat the same misinformation because I have seen members of the Conservative Party sitting in the House giving out misinformation, be corrected about it, and continue to repeat it as though they had never seen the actual facts shown to them and proven to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say, and I would like to congratulate her on her speech, because what she said was accurate. I will talk about this in more detail when I speak in a few minutes.

I am a bit surprised, though, and that it what my question is about. In 1976, if memory serves—and I hope it does—the Liberals were in power. I believe that Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister at the time, but I am not certain. If I recall correctly, the Liberals abolished the death penalty in Canada in 1976 and introduced the faint hope clause. I will come back to this in a few minutes in my speech.

I have a question for my colleague, who seems to be a lone voice among her Liberal colleagues, who will likely vote in favour of Bill C-36. I am looking for just one good reason why she should vote against it.

The party opposite should not talk about the victims. It does not understand the victims. We will talk about the victims later. I would like to know why the Liberal Party, which brought in the faint hope clause and knows how the system works, would vote for such a bill, which will take the last hope away from certain hand-picked inmates who have proven that they may be eligible for parole. I would like to understand.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my party. I will state outright that my party, based on the recommendations of our justice critic, will support the legislation at report stage and third reading. However, I would like to make a few points.

It is becoming more disconcerting to listen to the Conservative government and its MPs use fallacious statements and facts in order to bolster its position. There are many times when all members of the opposition or one or another party of the opposition support a particular policy that the government has put forward. Yet the government seems to be unable to help itself in either quoting out of context, in order to put a false conclusion on it, or in giving misinformation. The best example of that was right during the last speech.

The Liberals will, as I said, support Bill C-36 at report stage and third reading. We have concerns about the legislation. However, we would like to stick to facts because we believe, if we are solid on the facts, that they will support whatever conclusion or policy a government or a party puts forward and that there is no need to quote fallacious information, or to misquote people or to take things out of context in order to bolster one's position. That is inherently dishonest. If one is convinced of the rightness of one's position or the solidity of one's position, then there is no reason to undertake that kind of argument.

Bill C-36 would repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, known as the faint hope clause. That section is applicable to offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. Under that section, those offenders can apply at the 15-year mark of their sentence for an earlier parole eligibility date. There is a process that has been put into place. It initially began in the 1970s. In 1997, under the previous government, it was tightened up.

The judicial review for an earlier parole date is not a paper review. It is not simply a question of rehashing whatever evidence was put in before a court on the original charges of first degree or second degree murder, depending on which charge it is, or high treason. For members of the governing party to claim that it is, is simply not true and does not bolster their case. In fact, it weakens their position because it makes people then suspicious about every other statement of so-called fact and just how valid it is.

In fact, the current process is that at the 15-year mark of having served a first degree life sentence without possibility of parole until 25 years has been served, offenders can apply for an earlier review as to whether they are eligible for an earlier parole. That application form is quite substantive and unwieldy, as has been testified to before the committee by justice and public security officials, by Correctional Service Canada and by various groups, psychiatrists, criminologists and offenders themselves. One person who benefited from that clause came before us and explained the conditions and the process.

As was rightfully explained by the first member of the Conservative Party who spoke to this, the standard of proof that a judge on a judicial review of this application has to base his or her decision upon is that proof has been established that there is a reasonable prospect of success.

If the judge is of the opinion that this standard has been met, the judge then orders that a 12-member jury be constituted. That jury does not simply look over the evidence of the previous trial that led to the first degree murder conviction, but actually hears from witnesses. It hears from the offender. It hears from the victim's family and relatives, should they wish to testify. It hears from the members of the Correctional Service of Canada who have seen and handled this offender, and who will come to testify as to the conduct of the offender since.

When the member for Oak Ridges—Markham claims it is a paper review, that member is being disingenuous and does not bolster the case of the government. It actually weakens the government's case because it then leads people to believe that the government is trying to hide something. I would urge the members opposite not to be disingenuous, but simply to base their arguments for the bill on the facts.

What are the facts? The facts are that the overwhelming majority of offenders sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years for first degree murder, or 15 years served for second degree murder, do not even apply. They do not apply because they know they do not even meet that lower standard that exists right now, which requires a “reasonable prospect” of success.

Clearly, if the overwhelming majority do not meet the lower standard, it is clear that even fewer will meet the higher standard that Bill C-36 puts into place, which requires a “substantial likelihood” that a jury would unanimously approve the request for a hearing for earlier parole.

There is no reason for the members opposite to obfuscate the facts. That is my first point.

My second point is that it repeals the faint hope clause for those offenders who will be found guilty after the bill receives royal assent. For those who are currently serving, or will have been convicted and have begun serving their sentence prior to the day of royal assent, they will still benefit from Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. So it is very important that the members opposite do not attempt to play a hoax on most victims.

The minister came before committee and basically said that the reason he was bringing the bill forward was to ensure that no victim's family would ever have to relive testimony, et cetera. I asked him if there was a retroactive effect to this legislation, and he answered honestly, thank goodness, that no, it would only be repealed going forward. Therefore, I said to him that in fact the family members of victims who have already been murdered, and for whom the murderer has already been found guilty of first or second degree murder, will likely continue to have to face the prospect of testifying, should the offender apply under the faint hope clause. To that point, the minister said yes.

I beg the minister to please stop obfuscating the truth. What he should have said was that he was unable to garner a sufficiently strong argument to justify retroactive application of section 745 and, therefore, he has tightened up the possibility of limiting the application time of those offenders for whom section 745.6 will continue to apply, and has provided more security and certitude for the family members of victims.

I find it amazing that as a member of the official opposition, I am having to provide the government members with solid arguments to justify the government's own legislation because they have not done their homework. I am finding that is the case more and more.

We asked the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada for information, which was supposed to have been brought to the committee beforehand. That information dealt precisely with the actual statistics, whether or not anyone who had benefited from the faint hope clause had in fact gone on to reoffend and commit murder again, first or second degree, or high treason. We asked because those are the only charges to which the faint hope clause actually lends itself to a review and the possibility or faint hope of early parole. I have yet to see that information.

I cannot believe that the Correctional Service of Canada does not have that information, but I have not seen it. I have to question whether or not my colleagues from the Bloc and NDP who sit on the justice committee received that information. It would be curious to note whether or not the Conservative members who sit on that committee received that information.

I am offended when I am being asked to evaluate, study and review proposed government policy and legislation and the government does everything it can to keep information from members of the committee and parliamentarians. It does not bolster the government's case at all. It lends itself to making other parliamentarians less open to even listening to the government when it comes up with other new policies, because past behaviour is, in many cases, a predictor of current and future behaviour.

We have seen how the government has absolutely no qualms about misinforming people and taking information out of context, and when confronted about it, refusing to even acknowledge it was in the wrong. Then one has to call into question the government's good faith, because if someone unknowingly misquotes or quotes something out of context and it is brought to his or her attention, if that person has good faith, he or she will publicly apologize for getting it wrong. I have yet to hear this government or any of its members apologize when they have been confronted clearly with misinformation or misquotes.

The government has proposed repealing the faint hope clause after royal assent of the bill for anyone who is convicted of first degree murder, second degree murder, and high treason. Liberals will be supporting that. The government could not make it retroactive, and even on that I have concerns whether or not that was the case, because I have asked the question already. The minister did not table any legal opinions that would have demonstrated that a constitutional case could not have been made to make the repeal retroactive. I asked that question because I know this very well from when I was parliamentary secretary to the then solicitor general, now the public safety minister portfolio. At that time, when we were looking at creating a national sex offender registry, the proposed legislation first brought to us by the departmental officials was not retroactive.

At that time, I said that in my view there was a solid constitutional argument that would withstand a charter challenge and allow us to make the sex offender registry retroactive. I asked the officials to go back and do their homeworker. I did my own homework on the jurisprudence et cetera. When they came back, the Department of Justice officials admitted there was a solid argument that would allow the creation of a retroactive sex offender registry that would withstand a court challenge.

I asked the minister whether or not that work had been done for this particular legislation, and while he said yes, he also refused to provide any kind of documentary evidence, legal opinion, or research, et cetera, showing they could not make it retroactive in this case.

I have said all I need to say on this matter.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Oak Ridges—Markham for sharing his time with me today.

It is my pleasure to speak in strong support of Bill C-36, amendments to the Criminal Code that will put an end to the faith hope regime.

Saturday morning was Oakville's Santa Claus parade. I rode in a convertible with Frosty the Snowman, erstwhile Sheridan College student, Jaclyn Seer, as thousands of joyous adults and children waved and cheered along the curbs.

Towards the end we passed a police officer holding his radio microphone while he was chatting with another. “Look what I picked up”, he commented to the other officer. Alongside was a little boy about eight years old, still smiling, with a red foam ball attached to his nose, part of his Rudolph costume, apparently waiting for the officer to find his parents. I immediately wondered what might be going through his parents' minds. No doubt it would be worry that would grow exponentially as time passed, sadly with good reason.

I thought back to when I was a child in the 1950s and early 1960s. Even in Toronto, Canada's largest city, parents could allow their children to go out and play in the parks without fear, without fear they would be kidnapped, tortured or murdered. Today that is not true. Parents have to actually train innocent children against stealthy predators, both male and female. Tragically sometimes the predators still succeed.

I have to conclude that past governments have simply not done their best to protect our children and other vulnerable people. They have spent more time and effort worrying about the criminals in the system. As we passed that officer and little boy, I thought about why the people of Oakville sent me to Parliament. The first duty of any government is to protect its people, especially vulnerable people. That is my first duty to my constituents in Oakville. By voting for this bill, I am fulfilling that first duty.

Bill C-36 will ensure that those who commit the serious crimes of murder and high treason will serve the time that was imposed on them by the court that heard their case, serious time for serious crime, instead of getting some special break after 15 years and a paper review.

This means under this government many of our most dangerous criminals will be off our streets for 10 years longer, and others will think twice about their criminal plans. This will be real deterrence.

It is important to note that these are not troubled teens who stole a car to go for a joyride. They are not people who broke the law by mistake. They are the worst of the worst, people who have planned and carried out the worst crimes against innocent victims, crimes that are so horrible people would not even discuss them in front of children.

The faint hope clause was conceived in 1976 as a wish, an experiment by Liberal Justice Minister Warren Allman. It was supposed to provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves and at the same time increase security in prisons. It was good for the criminals but bad for the victims and their families.

I have heard some of the members opposite talk about studies that supposedly show that longer prison sentences do not deter crime, but how are these studies done? They are carried out by interviewing the people who have demonstrated they lack morals and have the highest motivation to lie, the criminals themselves, or they use selective statistics or they quote figures from the U.S., a largely different culture, regarding poverty, guns and crime.

Of course longer sentences reduce crime. The police and crown attorneys who deal with violent criminals will tell us that murderers are generally very well aware of the penalties they face if caught. Time in prison is what it is all about for these people. It is our most important tool in the justice system. The faint hope clause is a way that the worst criminals try to beat the system one more time. This is to say nothing of the huge cost to the taxpayers of the reviews and the hearings.

From victims' statements it is clear that the average person can only imagine the fear that the victim's families bear year after year that the person who murdered their loved one will obtain early release and kill again, or the continuing nightmare that they may one day meet the criminal face to face on the bus or in a lineup for a movie.

They have another dread, that one day after 15 years they will receive a letter in the mail requiring them to relive their terror and grief in order to make sure the criminal who stole the life of their loved one serves the full sentence he or she was given, because Parliament decided over 33 years ago to allow criminals to revisit that crime and sentence every two years. Why is that so? Is it because the perpetrator has been well-behaved in prison and he or she wants out?

There is no parole for the families. There is no early release for murder victims. The Liberal minister, who first introduced this clause in 1976, was concerned about the waste of the offender's life being in prison for 25 years, but where was the concern for the wasted life of the victim when the murderer chose to snuff it out? Who cared that the families were asked to relive their nightmares, in some cases every two years, by appearing at hearings for these criminals to tell their tragic stories over and over, effectively preventing them from leaving their pain behind and having any kind of closure?

Those of us in the Conservative Party care. There is an old expression that a Liberal is a Conservative who has not been mugged yet. There is an essential truth to that expression. Victims of violent crime on the whole have a vastly different view of crime and sentencing than those who have never been a victim. They see things much differently. That is because they have had the joy sucked out of their lives, at least temporarily, and their eyes are open. For some of them, life is never the same.

People who have looked into the eyes of a serial murderer or rapist and lived offer a unique perspective on a criminal's claim that 15 years in prison will change the criminal sense of right and wrong. All criminals want is for everyone to forget about their crimes. All the families of the victims want is for everyone to remember it. For justice, pick one.

The NDP member for Burnaby—Douglas claims that the system is working because, from 1997 to 2009, of 991 criminals who were eligible under this clause, only 131 were released and only four of them were caught in a similar crime. How incredibly naive that is. That statement is based on the ridiculous assumption that all crimes are solved and that all criminals are caught. Yet, we know there have been 3,400 unsolved murders in Canada since 1961. Over 500 native women have vanished in the last 30 years.

Clifford Olson was convicted for killing 11 children. Tragically, we have serial killers in Canada. Why would any clear-thinking person assume that the 101 faint hope parolees still out there are all perfectly reformed? When the time came to decide if Clifford Olson could apply for parole, however unlikely it was that he would get it, literally thousands of family members of those children and of those 500 missing women suffered a new man-made cruel and unusual punishment, this process of faint hope, as they relived their own losses.

We are keeping our promise to get tough on crime and hold offenders to account. If passed, Bill C-36 will bar all future murderers from applying for faint hope. This will effectively repeal the entire regime.

We in Parliament are tasked and trusted to protect vulnerable people. Each of us in this place asked for this trust and we must fulfill it. It should make no difference that the prison is in an unpleasant place. Our priority must be victims and their families and deterring violent crime.

I believe every member of the House should vote on the bill with one question in mind. If it were my child or spouse who was raped and murdered, how would I vote? We owe our constituents the same level of protection we would provide for our own families and nothing less.