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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 45 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, November 2, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We have two items to deal with. First of all, we have a number of witnesses to hear on Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, dealing with the “faint hope” clause.

After hearing our witnesses on Bill C-36, we'll move to some committee business. We have a motion up for consideration, Mr. Moore's motion, and we'll deal with it at that time.

Appearing as witnesses today on Bill C-36 we have first of all Sharon Rosenfeldt, representing Victims of Violence; we also have Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; and finally we have Mr. Michael Mandelcorn, representing the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

Welcome to all three of you. I think you know the routine. You have up to ten minutes for your presentation. Then we'll open the floor to questions.

Mr. Mandelcorn, perhaps we could start with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 44 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, October 28, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We have a number of matters to deal with. First of all, we have further witnesses to hear in our review of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, in dealing with the faint hope clause. After hearing our witnesses on Bill C-36, we'll move to a second panel. This panel is made up of witnesses who were unable to appear in Halifax for our ongoing study on organized crime in Canada. This panel you will see by video conference, and it will come in the second half of this meeting.

I believe we are waiting for one witness in our first panel, but we have with us Ms. Thérèse McCuaig. Ms. McCuaig, I think you understand that you have ten minutes to present, and if Mr. Teague shows up, he'll have another ten minutes. Then we will open the floor to questions from our members.

Please proceed.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also consider it to be a real pleasure to stand in this place and debate Bill S-205. It started in the Senate. It has already been mentioned, but I thank Senator Grafstein for drafting this bill.

I also specifically want to thank our member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. Very seldom do we have the opportunity to work together. That member of Parliament sponsored this bill to come forward in this House. As we have seen today, she has been able to work with all members of the House to bring us together and have a consensus on this one bill. As a new member of Parliament, she has shown us that she works hard. Bringing forward a bill like this one is significant and I wanted to commend her for doing that.

I am pleased to support this bill. It proposes to specifically include suicide bombing in the definition of “terrorist activity” in the Criminal Code. This bill would add a for greater certainty clause, after section 83.01 of the Criminal Code, which would specify that suicide bombing comes within paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “terrorist activity” when committed in the context of a terrorist activity.

As has already been talked about, this bill has had a long history in the Senate. It has been introduced four times from 2005 to 2008, but all previous versions of the bill died on the order paper. That is one of the things about a minority government. It seems that we are having so many elections. So much good legislation ends up dying on the order paper. One version, Bill S-210, was passed by the Senate on June 16, 2008.

I recognize that the current definition of “terrorist activity” contained in the Criminal Code already implicitly encompasses suicide bombing when committed in the context of terrorism. If we look at the definition of “terrorist activity” in the code, it incorporates criminal conduct as envisioned by the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which is one of the United Nations' counterterrorism conventions. The second part of the definition includes terrorist activity which intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm or endangers a person's life. However, it is also true that the words “suicide bombing” are not expressly mentioned in the present definition of “terrorist activity”. There is considerable support for the specific criminalization of suicide bombing as part of the terrorist activity defined in the code.

Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, a Toronto-based group led by a former judge, has been particularly supportive of the objectives behind Bill S-205. The group established an online petition in support of the bill. Many prominent Canadians from all walks of life have signed an open letter of support for this bill.

I have had the pleasure of serving in Parliament for nine years. As the elected representative of the constituency of Crowfoot in Alberta, I have served in a number of different capacities in my parliamentary duties. Right now, I have the pleasure of chairing the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

One of the opportunities that I have as the chair of the foreign affairs committee is to sit down with ambassadors from many different countries. In the last couple of days, I had the pleasure of sitting with the high commissioner from Pakistan. I think that everyone in the House understands what Pakistan is facing today. Pakistan is facing a barrage from the Taliban and terrorist groups there. We commend Pakistan on the way it is standing up to that direct line of fire, in some cases as its military goes in to try to rid the country of terrorist activity.

The topic he brought to my attention was the fear in which many people in that country live, not out on the battlefield, not in the valleys or up in the hills as they go after the Taliban or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, but the fear in the malls and shopping centres because of terrorist activity in the towns and cities, in Islamabad and in other places, the fear of suicide bombers.

We see this more and more around the world. We see it in Iraq. We see the huge fear in Israel where people go through a metal detector before going into a mall. Their bags and backpacks are checked before they go into a shopping mall. Why? Because they have a fear of terrorist bombing. We see it in places like Pakistan and obviously in Afghanistan, where we have lost many, many troops to roadside bombs, but also to suicide bombers.

Among other things, we have studied the impact of suicide bombing in our mission in Afghanistan. Brave Canadian men and women are being targeted by suicide bombers. They see the vehicle coming toward them. They look at the eyes of the person and they watch as the person reaches into his pocket to detonate the explosives that blow up the vehicle and ignite many other explosions. We are losing far too many people from that.

I have also had the pleasure of serving as the opposition critic for public safety and emergency preparedness when we brought forward Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Again, so much of our committee time is taken up talking about the suicide bombers in many of these countries.

A number of years ago I served as the vice-chair of the subcommittee on national security. That was another committee that spent so much time concerned with bringing forward and helping to draft legislation, influence legislation that would address issues like suicide bombing. I do not want to read my resumé; that is not what I am trying to do here. But I am trying to point out that this place has been dealing with criminal and national security issues in many different committees. We are dealing with issues like the suicide bombing and it is taking up a lot of energy and a lot of time here in the House.

The main thing I learned, which is applicable in our debate today, is that when a person, a community, a nation or even the international community is threatened by violence, we have to do something about it. For that again I commend our senator and I commend our minister, I mean our member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar--I called her a minister; she is a member, but I think someday she will be a minister--for bringing this forward.

That is what Bill S-205 is accomplishing. The bill is doing something about suicide bombing. It is specific and that is what I like about it. That is why I support it. That is why I am very pleased to look around this place and see every party pledging their support for the bill.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. I'm not sure that it will take five minutes.

I just want to clear up a little point that has been bothering me about subclause 4(1) of Bill C-36, which will change the wording “reasonable prospect” of success to “substantial likelihood” of success in subsection 745.61(1) and in certain paragraphs of that. I think I'm understanding that this is being considered a procedural change rather than a substantive one and is therefore capable of being applied retroactively to sentences for which the faint hope clause will still apply.

My first look at it gave rise to the thought that it really is more a change of substantive rights than a procedural change. I just want to make sure that I'm correct that the change applies to those who have already been subject and sentenced subject to the benefit of the faint hope clause and that someone has looked at it and has decided that it passes constitutional muster because it's only a procedural change. Or am I on the wrong track altogether?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief.

Ms. Kane, I want to understand how the legislation would apply using a case that has already been settled. I want to know whether what we are doing could have been applied in the past. In Quebec, everyone heard about the case of Denis Lortie, who, in the middle of the National Assembly, killed three people and was later found guilty.

He is now out of prison. After serving eight years, he was released on parole. He wanted to kill members of the Parti Québécois. He was sentenced and later released.

If Bill C-36 had been passed at the time, could Denis Lortie have been released before serving 15, 20 or 25 years? This is an actual case. In Quebec, this individual is no longer in prison despite having killed three people in the National Assembly. If this had happened today, would he have been sentenced to 15, 20 or 25 years in prison?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try not to get into an argument with you.

Mr. Minister, I am not sure whether you or anyone in this room has ever watched someone convicted of first-degree murder apply for parole. I have seen it, and I can tell you that it is an extremely painstaking process.

I have done all the analysis, I have met with Mr. Giokas, and I have studied everything carefully. Instead of proposing everything in Bill C-36, why not propose just one other thing? We all agree that murder is the worst crime that someone can commit. When someone is convicted of first- or second-degree murder, why not give that person one chance only? After reading your bill, I did the math. A person is not eligible before they have served a minimum of 15 years. They have to go before a judge, and if they are not successful, they will probably have to go to 25 years.

As a lawyer, I would much prefer preparing my client just once. There is no need to do it two or three times because the rules are very clear and the judges, very strict. That might satisfy a lot of people at this table. Why not say that you have one chance only, that you cannot miss that chance and that you have to prepare properly?

Your bill promises something that is not necessary, since the individual who is unsuccessful once will have to wait five years to reapply.

After analyzing everything, I truly believe that we should say you have one chance only and you need to prepare properly, and we need to explain how it will work. That is the only solution as I see it.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for coming to the committee.

Colleagues will know, and the minister knows, that we supported Bill C-36 at second reading. We continue to believe that this is an appropriate measure to take. It was a previous government, as the minister noted, that restricted it 12 years ago, and this is a further restriction of the faint hope provision.

There has been, I think, a lot of confusion around this. “Faint hope” means faint hope in the sense that, as the minister alluded to earlier, people convicted of those very serious offences shouldn't automatically assume that the rigorous provisions by which they could apply to a court for the ability to then apply to the National Parole Board would automatically be accepted.

I'm wondering if the minister or his officials have any statistics. In terms of offenders who have taken advantage of the faint hope provision and made application in the past, what percentage of those applications in recent years, for example, would actually end up being granted parole?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to meet with you once again to discuss justice legislation. This time I'm here to discuss Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, which proposes to make significant changes to the faint hope regime.

As you are aware, the Criminal Code currently provides that offences of high treason and first and second degree murder carry mandatory terms of life imprisonment accompanied by mandatory periods of parole ineligibility. For high treason and first degree murder, an offender must spend a minimum of 25 years in prison before being eligible to apply for parole. For second degree murder, an offender must serve a minimum of 10 years. However, a judge may increase this to a maximum of 25 years, depending on a variety of factors, including the circumstances of the crime.

Despite the appropriately severe nature of these parole ineligibility periods, the faint hope regime--section 745.6 and related provisions in the Criminal Code--allows offenders sentenced to life imprisonment for murder or high treason to apply to be eligible for early parole after serving only 15 years. Our government promised to change this by restricting the availability of faint hope for already incarcerated offenders and by eliminating it completely in the future.

The amendments to the Criminal Code I'm bringing forward will accomplish these goals. First, they will bar everyone who commits murder or high treason in the future from applying for faint hope. All those who commit these offences after these proposed amendments come into force will no longer be able to apply for a parole eligibility date earlier than that mandated by the Criminal Code and imposed by the judge at the time of sentencing. In effect, Mr. Chairman, the faint hope regime will be repealed for all murderers in the future. This will complete a process begun in 1997, when the faint hope regime was effectively repealed for all multiple murderers who committed at least one murder after that date.

The rationale for Bill C-36 in this regard is very straightforward. Allowing murderers a chance, even a faint one, to get early parole is not truth in sentencing. Truth in sentencing means that those who commit serious crimes ought to do serious time. That is what the proposals in Bill C-36 aim to do. They restore truth in sentencing and keep dangerous criminals in prison for longer periods of time.

Clearly, the faint hope regime does not, on its face, automatically entitle an applicant to parole. In fact, however, the vast majority of those who are successful on a faint hope application are ultimately granted parole by the National Parole Board. What this means is that killers who were given appropriately lengthy sentence terms are getting out and walking the streets, albeit under conditions of parole, earlier than otherwise would be the case. These amendments are designed to respond to the concern of Canadians who are often dismayed to discover that, thanks to faint hope, the custodial sentences imposed on murderers are not always the ones served.

As for those already incarcerated for murder who are now eligible to apply under the faint hope clause or will become eligible to apply for faint hope in the coming years, their right to do so will remain.

However, the second thing these amendments will do is tighten up the faint hope application procedure to screen out the most unworthy of these applications and place restrictions on when and how many times these offenders may apply for faint hope. This new procedure will apply to those who commit their offences before the coming-into-force date. Those already serving life sentences in prison, those who have been convicted but not yet sentenced, and those charged with murder or high treason prior to the coming-into-force date who are later convicted will be subject to this new procedure.

In proposing these Criminal Code amendments both to bar future murderers from applying and to tighten up the application procedure for those already in the system, Mr. Chairman, we are mindful of the suffering endured by the families and loved ones of murder victims. Through these amendments, we propose to spare them the pain of attending repeated faint hope hearings and having to relive their terrible losses. As I have said on a number of occasions, this government remains committed to standing up for the victims of crime.

Many of you already know that the faint hope application has been amended a number of times since its inception in 1976 in response to the concerns of victims' families and the citizens of Canada.

At present, the procedure has three steps. First, the applicant must convince a judge in the province where the conviction occurred that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will proceed. This threshold test has been described by both the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and the Ontario Superior Court as being relatively low.

We will make this test tougher. A faint-hope applicant will have to prove that they have a substantial likelihood that their application will succeed. They will need to have that substantial likelihood that their application will succeed. This means that the evidence the offender will bring forward to a judge must be much more convincing. This will prevent less worthy applications from going forward.

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

If these proposed procedural changes become law, a convicted murderer with a 25-year parole ineligibility period who applies at the earliest possible opportunity will only be able to make two faint-hope applications, at the 15- and the 20-year mark. This contrasts with the present system, where there are five applications at 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 years. This change from two to five years will create more certainty for the families of victims about when a faint-hope hearing will occur. By limiting the number of applications that can be made, we will reduce the trauma that these hearings often inflict on them.

If an applicant succeeds at the first stage, he must then convince a 12-member jury to agree unanimously to reduce his or her parole eligibility date. If the jury says no, the offender may, under the present law, reapply in as little as two years. Again, we are going to change this to five years, and for the same reasons that I've just outlined.

If an applicant is successful at the second stage, he or she may go on to apply for parole directly to the National Parole Board. No changes are proposed for this final stage of the process.

Under the current law, those convicted of murder or high treason may apply for faint hope at any time after serving 15 years. We also propose to change this by putting a three-month limit on faint-hope applications.

This will require applicants to apply within 90 days of becoming eligible. If this application window is missed, the offender will have to wait five years to apply and will once again have 90 days within which to file a subsequent application. This will ensure that applications are made at the first and each subsequently available opportunity. No longer will victims' families be forced to live in constant dread, uncertain as to whether a particular killer will revive their suffering by seeking early parole at his or her whim.

Let me add that I understand the concern of ordinary Canadians that the faint-hope regime allows for lenient treatment of murderers. In this regard, I believe that most Canadians support these measures, which are aimed at protecting society by keeping violent or dangerous offenders in custody for longer periods. This bill will allow us to meet the concerns of Canadians that murderers do the time they have been given and stay longer in prison than they do now. That is why I urge all members of this committee to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, October 19, 2009. I'll just note that today's meeting is being televised.

You have before you your agenda for today. At the end of today's meeting we'll leave approximately 20 minutes to deal with some committee business and to continue debate on Monsieur Ménard's motion on the study on the Cinar case. I can also advise the committee that your subcommittee will be meeting tomorrow at noon to plan our schedule going forward.

Once again, I'll remind all of us to turn off BlackBerrys or put them on vibrate, and please make sure you take any phone calls outside of this room. Thank you for your courtesy.

Now back to our agenda. By order of reference, we will be considering Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code. This is a bill that deals with serious time for the most serious crime.

To help us with our review of this bill we have with us the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Welcome back, Minister.

Opposition Motion--Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion moved by the hon. member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader.

The motion recognizes the role of the House in ensuring government accountability. As we know, that is the primary function of Parliament in our Westminster system.

More specifically, the motion at hand calls for three things: first, that the Standing Orders of the House be changed with respect to the scheduling of allotted days this fall; second, that the House calendar be altered to accommodate the G20 meetings in September; and third, that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget.

I will touch on these three points very briefly, as it is the government's intention to support the motion. I will devote the remainder of my remarks to a more general discourse on the successful functioning of Parliament and my experiences of this past session.

The opposition day motion provides for a change to the rules of Parliament with regard to how the government may allocate opposition days this fall. Since coming to office in 2006, as a general rule our government has always tried to evenly distribute the opposition days in the parliamentary calendar. In certain circumstances we recognize that legislative priorities can force a deviation from this practice. However, we do support the idea of amending the Standing Orders to ensure that this usual practice becomes a rule.

The second provision of today's opposition day motion provides for a change to the House calendar for the fall of 2009. Under this provision the House would open a week earlier than currently scheduled and it would then adjourn for the week of September 21. This will enable the government to focus on the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24 and 25.

The G20 is the chief forum for the world leaders, as a group, to address issues resulting from the global economic crisis, and Canada has played an active and important role in these discussions. At the fall G20 meetings, the Prime Minister and other world leaders will discuss progress in promoting economic recovery and they will consider new ways to address global economic and financial challenges.

I think we can all agree that there is no more pressing issue before Parliament than dealing with the global economic downturn, which has caused personal hardship and job loss around the world. Unfortunately, as we all know, Canada has not been immune.

Our legislative program of this past session has reflected that the economy is the number one issue for Canadians. As such, I am pleased to support a motion that permits the Government of Canada to give its undivided attention to the critical economic discussions that will be taking place at the G20 summit in September.

The third provision of today's opposition motion requests that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget. In the face of global economic uncertainty, this government presented a budget in January with a comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.

This economic recovery program is unprecedented in our history, and it is working. Canada was the last group of seven country to enter recession and the International Monetary Fund expects that we will have the strongest recovery coming out of it.

The government has also taken unprecedented steps in reporting on our economic action plan. We tabled an initial budget report in March. A week ago we tabled a second budget report, which outlines how 80% of the measures in our economic action plan are already being implemented. This government welcomes the opportunity provided by today's opposition day motion to table a third budget report in September. In fact, we committed to such a report in our budget presentation earlier this past winter.

The Minister of Finance announced at the time that he would be tabling an economic report in the fall. This being the case, I commend the official opposition for echoing the government's pre-existing intention and commitment to provide quarterly reports on the economy in and through the House to all Canadians. As we debate this today, I think it is important to remember that the government was already committed to providing that report in September.

As all members in the House know, the last few weeks have not been easy in this place. In fact they have not been easy on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. During this time of economic challenge, Canadians did not want to hear about the possibility of an election. Canadians want us to continue to work to achieve results for them. They know we cannot afford an election, which would put Canada's economic recovery at risk, halt stimulus investment across the country and limit our ability to continue to implement our economic action plan for Canadians.

By avoiding an election, we have enabled the government to continue its course of doing everything possible to turn this global recession around on our own soil. The cooperation we have seen emerge over this week, spearheaded by our Prime Minister, has not only avoided a costly and unwanted election but has clearly demonstrated to Canadians that their Parliament can work for them.

Despite the partisan political drama played out during the daily 45 minutes of question period, Canadians may be surprised to know just how cooperative and productive this past session of Parliament has been. Since January, our government has worked with all opposition parties to advance many important bills that will help Canadian families. We have moved forward on our electoral commitments, and I am pleased that much more has been done.

Since January, the government has introduced a total of 54 bills. By the time the Senate adjourns for the summer next week, I expect we will have royal assent on 26 of those bills, including such important legislative initiatives as Bill C-33, which will restore war veterans' allowances to allied veterans and their families; Bill C-29, to guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and co-operatives; Bill C-3, to promote the economic development of Canada's north; Bill C-28, to increase the governance capacity of first nations in Canada; and Bill C-14, a critically important justice bill to fight the scourge of organized crime.

Although much work has been accomplished, a good number of bills that continue to be priorities of our government remain on the order paper, including Bill C-6, to enact Canada's consumer product safety act to help protect the health and safety of all Canadians; Bill C-8, to provide first nations women on reserve with the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians; and Bill C-23, to open new doors for trade between Canada and Colombia.

Furthermore, our government has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fighting crime and violence in this country. Our justice minister, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, has been unrelenting in his determination to hold criminals accountable and protect victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.

Over a dozen justice related bills have been introduced since the beginning of this parliamentary session, which include Bill C-15, Bill C-26 and Bill S-4, to help fight crimes related to criminal organizations, such as drug-related offences, identity theft and auto theft; Bill C-25, which will return truth in sentencing and eliminate the two for one credit; Bill C-36, which will repeal the faint hope clause, and Bill C-19, the new anti-terrorism bill.

Unfortunately none of these bills have completed the legislative process during this session of Parliament. Again, due to the leadership of our Prime Minister, thankfully our country will not be plunged into an election and these bills will remain on the order paper. We hope to pass them into law in the fall.

I look forward to continuing the spirit of cooperation in this place in September to accomplish this unfinished business for all Canadians. Five of these bills have already passed one chamber of Parliament and they are before the second House for consideration. On behalf of vulnerable Canadians in particular, we have to keep moving to get the job done on this important legislation.

In closing, I am pleased that the government has been able to develop today's opposition day motion in cooperation with the official opposition. This House of Commons should more often focus on what all of us have in common rather than what divides us. While I would have liked to have seen some debate on some of our newer bills that we have just introduced and passed more of our justice and safety bills, this parliamentary sitting is winding down in the age-old Canadian tradition of compromise.

We all know that this place is about debate, trade-offs, negotiations and compromise. This is how Parliament works. This is how our very country was born, has grown and continues to develop and flourish.

As I have already indicated, the government will be supporting today's motion. I again salute our Prime Minister for his leadership in staving off an election, which I think would be dreaded by the vast majority of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you, and all colleagues in this House, a very happy summer.

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Thursday question, and I will not suggest that it was a little bit crazy for the hon. member to suggest that this is the last Thursday, because even if the House would be sitting Monday and Tuesday, it would still be the last Thursday of this session, if I have read my calendar properly.

I will get to his two specific questions later. First, I would like to inform the House that we will continue debate today with Bill C-36, our serious time for the most serious crime bill, and then Bill C-37, concerning the National Capital Act.

Tomorrow is the last allotted day for this supply period. Pursuant to a special order made earlier today, government business will begin one hour earlier than normal, at 9 a.m., and conclude at 1 p.m., which, for a normal Friday, is half an hour earlier.

Since there is no private members' business on the last allotted day, the bells to call in the members to dispose of all business relating to supply will begin at 1 p.m. tomorrow. The voting will thus begin at 1:15. When the votes are concluded, the House will adjourn for the summer, pursuant to the opposition motion.

I note that there is an opposition motion dealing with the business of opposition days, allotted days for the fall session. There was, I understand, some extensive discussion and consultation between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition in that regard. Of course, if that opposition motion tomorrow passes, I will give careful consideration to the first opposition day and when it will be in September. I will think about that long and hard over the summer.

With respect to the other question, about the honorary citizenship for the Aga Khan, I will be circulating a motion to that effect to the other parties, and perhaps we can do that tomorrow. On the last day, I think that might be suitable, and hopefully everybody will agree to that.

Finally, since this will be my last response to a Thursday question before we adjourn for the summer, I would like to thank all hon. members for their co-operation during this session. I think we achieved a great deal during our spring sitting. This afternoon, Her Excellency, the Governor General, will be granting royal assent to eight additional bills. Next week we expect to add to that list, and 12 bills have already received royal assent during this session.

Politicians often talk about how they want this Parliament to work, and what they are referring to is the co-operation I just mentioned. However, as the hon. House leader for the official opposition mentioned, and I want to add my words of praise, the true folks who really make Parliament work are the hard-working, professional, dedicated staff of the House of Commons. You, Mr. Speaker, and Madam Clerk should be very proud of them, because, and I think I can speak for all members, we here in the House certainly appreciate everything they do for us every day, every minute of every day, in fact.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not specifically single out our pages for the exemplary work they did throughout the session. They will be leaving us, I know, with great sadness. Tomorrow will be their last day. We will certainly miss them. On behalf of the government, I would like to extend our very best wishes for a terrific future on whatever paths their future takes them.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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