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.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Wesley, I'm going to ask you one question concerning Bill C-36. I speak as someone who voted against that bill when it was before the House in 2014.

Is there any way that a complaint, for example, to your organization from the massage parlour identifying Mr. Gallese as a threat to women could have worked? Is there any way, under that legislation, that could have been reported without endangering the circumstances and the vulnerability of Ms. Levesque and the others who worked in that parlour?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for joining us this morning.

I would like to remind you that the title of Bill C-36 is the following: An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

It is the committee's role to ensure that, following the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case, Bill C-36 will not eventually be back before the court and that all the work we are currently doing will not have to be redone. Despite everything, the minister feels that this bill will be back before the court, and that is very disappointing for me. This would mean there will be a lot of insecurity, questioning and divisions for years to come.

As a lawyer, I am trying to highlight the clearest possible provisions that best reflect what we are trying to do. My favourite expression is the following:

Put your money where your mouth is.

I would like to raise a few short overhead questions. I would like everyone to answer them fairly quickly.

Do you feel that prostitution cases where women are clients also constitute acts of violence?

I say that to everyone, so maybe it could just go in the order of their testimony.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Holland mentioned that he didn't hear the New Democrats opposing this bill in 2001. In the actual voting on the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, on Bill C-36, all 10 NDP MPs voted against; all 30 Bloc MPs voted against; the Progressive Conservatives split 11 for and 1 against; the Canadian Alliance was 44 for and 4 against; and the Liberals were 134 for and 2 against. I just want to correct the record so that Canadians know what happened in 2001.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate on the motion to prevent debate on the content and substance of Bill C-59. I find it rather odd that the Bloc has supported the government's attempt to stifle any attempt at debate on the substance of this bill.

No one in the House can accuse the Liberals of not supporting the idea of eliminating parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes. Two years ago, my colleague from Bourassa, our candidate in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and our member for Lac-Saint-Louis participated in a press conference with several of Earl Jones' victims to call on the government to quickly bring forward a bill to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served, especially for criminals who commit major fraud and have multiple victims.

No one can accuse the Liberals of not supporting that idea. I think it is really dishonest of the government to make that kind of accusation when it knows very well what the Liberals' position is. This was pointed out by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Now I would like to talk about the debate and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc members want to limit the scope of the debate. Just seven months ago the members of the Bloc rose in the House to criticize the government for doing the exact same thing it is doing now with Bill C-59. The government moved a motion to block debate.

Last June, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain rose in the House to criticize the government for moving a motion to block debate on the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The Bloc member for Hochelaga also rose to oppose a government motion to block debate on Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, by imposing time allocation.

We are opposed to this time allocation motion because we believe that Bill C-59 addresses a very important issue. Furthermore, for two years now, the Liberals have been calling on the government to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes like those committed by Earl Jones, Vincent Lacroix and others.

I think it is a shame that some would have people believe that the Liberals do not want to protect victims. That is simply not true. When the government introduced Bill C-21 on economic crimes and it was referred to committee, the Liberal justice critic proposed an amendment to the bill to eliminate eligibility for parole after one-sixth of the sentence in cases of economic crime. The Conservatives and the Bloc defeated the motion.

Every MP is entitled to his or her opinion on bills that we are called on to debate in the House. It is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. The operative word here is “debate”, and the collusion between the Conservatives and the Bloc is preventing us from acting as responsible parliamentarians.

We would like to hear from experts. We want to know how this bill will truly address a gap in the law, how it will do justice to victims, how this bill will improve the chances of rehabilitation for those who once lost control of their lives.

Perhaps we should indeed eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence for offenders who have committed serious economic crimes and left a number of victims.

However, for non-violent criminal acts that are not fraud, we believe that evidence has shown that parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been very effective and that the rate of recidivism is much lower.

We will never know what the experts might have said since this closure motion eliminates any chance to consult experts. With this government so eager to control everything, it has become somewhat of a tradition to just pass a bill without any idea of the facts that might call it into question.

The Liberals are against this closure motion. It is not justified, and we regret that the Bloc has decided to join the Conservatives to limit the debate on this bill. As far as the substance of the bill is concerned, in the past and still today, no one could accuse the Liberals of not showing their support for eliminating parole after one-sixth of the sentence for economic crimes.

In order to illustrate the government's intellectual dishonesty, I would like to present a chronology of the Conservatives' failures in their so-called fight against crime.

I am referring here to the various bills that have died on the order paper for all sorts of reasons or that have remained in the House or at committee indefinitely.

Here they are. Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), died on the order paper before the House had a chance to vote on it; Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), also died on the order paper. It is certainly not the opposition that forced the government to prorogue Parliament.

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, died on the order paper, and Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on the faint hope clause, died on the order paper before being brought back this session. One committee meeting was held on Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, before it died on the order paper. Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), which is related to Bill C-59, the bill we are dealing with today, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, died on the order paper. The prorogation of Parliament killed many bills.

Among the bills introduced by the Minister of Public Safety was Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, which also died on the order paper. The bill to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act died on the order paper. Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, died on the order paper. Bill C-47, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations, died on the order paper. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper. Bill C-60, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, died on the order paper.

To date, no meetings have been held to discuss Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), was given first reading 51 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the committee still has not met to discuss that bill.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), was fast-tracked at committee in just one meeting and still has not reached second reading. Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, was given first reading 64 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the government delayed it for 26 days at report stage because of the debate on the short title.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, was given first reading 89 days after Parliament was prorogued, and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders), was given first reading after 94 days, and we are still waiting. First reading of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act took place 243 days after Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), was given first reading and nothing more.

Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children) only made it to first reading. Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act was introduced at first reading by the Minister of Public Safety 15 days after prorogation. Two committee meetings were held and nothing has happened since. As for Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, we are still waiting. After a few meetings on the subject, the minister was supposed to come back with amendments that he felt were necessary in order to make the bill more comprehensive and definitely more respectful. Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading 104 days after prorogation and we still have not met in committee to discuss it. Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act was introduced for first reading 232 days after prorogation and there it remains. Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations was also introduced for first reading 243 days after prorogation and we are waiting for the next step. The Senate introduced Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act for first reading 49 days after prorogation and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading in the Senate 60 days after prorogation. Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America was introduced for first reading 237 days after prorogation.

I am pointing this out to prove that it is not the opposition parties that are slowing the process down. For all sorts of unknown reasons, the government introduces these bill and then goes no further with them.

To conclude, I would like to question the justification for Bill C-59 and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc felt this was urgent enough to warrant this closure motion, which is an affront to parliamentary dialogue.

Criminal Code

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill S-6 on the elimination of the faint hope clause.

I want to start where my colleague ended on the importance of having a place in our criminal justice system where redemption and hope are possible, even for those who have committed the most serious crimes that we deal with in our society. The member put it very well and I do not think I could say it better or more clearly than he has. This has to be an important part of our criminal justice system and our corrections system. The bill would go some way in eliminating that possibility from our system.

Bill S-6 is back in the House. The last time I spoke on this issue was back on June 18, 2009, when we debated Bill C-36, essentially the same bill. The bill died when the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House, once again short-circuiting the government's agenda on criminal justice issues. It was not the House that has slowed down the Conservatives' agenda. They have slowed down their agenda by using prorogation and calling early elections. They have not put forth the effort that it takes to get legislation through this place and this is an excellent example of one of those bills. They like to blame the opposition, but the reality is they have done more harm to the timing of their own agenda than the opposition could ever hope to do.

Bill S-6 is an act to amend the Criminal Code on the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible for early parole. One of the good amendments that has come out of the committee process this time around is to eliminate the silly subtitle that the Conservatives chose to give the legislation. I am glad that is gone.

At the outset, this legislation, which eliminates the possibility of revision to parole for people who have committed murder or who are sentenced to life for high treason, is completely wrong. I am opposed to the basic principle of the legislation that claims we are not well served by this process of judicial review, in fact of citizen review, and that the faint hope clause should not be part of our criminal justice system.

I really believe we have been well served by the legislation and by the process. I believe it has encouraged rehabilitation in our prison system and made our prisons safer for both other prisoners as well as the prison guards and other professionals who work in our correctional service. It gives people the possibility of hope that they might be released early from a life sentence.

It has a very important positive effect within the institutions of the correctional system. It has also allowed for a measure of discretion to review the parole eligibility of people who have been sentenced to life in prison and it has encouraged a strong measure of citizen involvement in making the decisions on that very important process. However, in my opinion this legislation would seek to undo all of those things.

The current legislation and section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, which deals with judicial review, enables offenders serving life in prison with parole ineligibility periods of more than 15 years to apply for a reduction of that period. The review is not intended as a forum for retrial of the original offence. The focus is instead on the progress of the offender after having served at least 15 years of his or her sentence. That is how the Department of Justice describes the current process on its website. It is how it describes the intent of the current legislation.

It is important to review the process involved when the faint hope clause is engaged by someone serving a life sentence in prison. It is a very rigorous one. It is one that involves several stages. It is not easy to accomplish and everyone needs to appreciate the fact that there is rigour involved in this process.

The first stage is an application to the chief justice of the province in which the person was convicted. The chief justice or a designated superior court judge reviews the written materials presented from the Crown and the applicant. Then that judge determines on the basis of the written materials whether the applicant has shown on a balance of probabilities that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed. If the judge decides that, a jury is impanelled to hear the case. If the judge decides there is no reason to proceed further, the appeal process stops at this point and there is no further follow-up. The judge, the Crown, the applicant all have a key role in this first stage.

The next stage is the jury. When the jury is constituted and impanelled, it then considers a number of issues when it looks at the application from the person in prison. When determining whether there should be a reduction of parole ineligibility, the jury determines the character of the applicant, his or her conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, information provided by the victim's family members about how the crime has affected them and any other matters the judge has considered relevant in the circumstances. The jury looks at a very broad scope at this point.

This is a panel of 12 citizens and the panel considers those factors and makes a decision about the reduction of the period of ineligibility. The decision of that jury to reduce the ineligibility period must be unanimous. We are not talking about a simple majority or anything like that. The jury can reduce the parole ineligibility period immediately, or at a later date or deny any reduction.

This is a pretty important process involving citizens who are engaged in this decision. That is a crucial thing to notice about this process. It is important to protect that point where citizens can engage in the criminal justice system, where they can engage in the corrections system and help make important decisions that affect the community, that affect other citizens, both victims and people in prison. That is a crucial piece of the existing legislation. It is important to have citizens engaged in making decisions.

There are safeguards all through this process. The fact that the jury has to be unanimous is key among those safeguards in the existing process.

When the jury decides unanimously that the number of years to be served should be reduced, it can then decide by a two-thirds majority the number of years that must be served before the inmate can apply to the National Parole Board. If the jury decides that the period of parole ineligibility is not to be reduced, it can set another time at which the prisoner can again apply for judicial review. If no date is set, then the prisoner can reapply after two years for this process to be engaged again.

It is a complex process. The process initially involves a senior judge and then a jury of 12 citizens, two of the most important features of our system. Judicial discretion is involved. There is a strong citizen involvement component. The community is absolutely represented in the decision that someone's parole should be reduced.

That is not the end of the story because then the parole board does its job. The decision about whether the person gets out on parole is made by the parole board in the usual fashion. Here is another group of professionals who serve our communities admirably, who are engaged in this decision-making process, who are then engaged in discovering whether the person will succeed in the community and then help that person if he or she is ultimately released into the community.

This is not just a short-term parole. Anyone who gets out as a result of this process is on parole for life. That parole period never ends. It continues until that person dies. We need to remember again how important that is and how that offers protection to our communities as well.

There is a lot to this complex process. It is one that has served us well over many years. It originally came in during the mid-seventies when we essentially stopped using capital punishment. It was reaffirmed after the last capital punishment debate in the House in 1986. I believe it has been serving us essentially in its current form for about 25 years.

What has happened in that 25 years? What is the exact experience of this faint hope clause, of this possibility for early parole for someone who is sentenced to life for murder or treason?

New information came out during the course of the justice committee hearings on this bill from the Commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada, Mr. Don Head. He presented information that was valid as of October 10, 2010. He noted that there were 1,508 offenders with cases applicable to judicial review. That is the number of people in our system who could potentially apply for early release under the faint hope clause.

In the 25 years since the first judicial review hearing in 1987, there have a total of 181 court decision. In that 25 years, 181 people have applied to engage this process. That is not a significant number when we look at the total number who are eligible to do that.

Of those 181 court decisions, 146 resulted in a reduction of the period that must be served before parole eligibility and 35 resulted in a refusal. Already, the system has been weeding out the potential reductions.

Of the 146 offenders who had their parole eligibility moved earlier, 135 have been granted parole. Again, there is a change in the number. Out of the potential 146, we are down to 135.

Of those 135 who were granted parole, 68 have had no issue during their period of supervisions, 35 received a suspension because of some problem during their parole but their parole was not subsequently revoked and 23 had their parole revoked. Apparently a lot of those cases dealt with issues related to chronic offending against the conditions of parole, things like using drugs, alcohol, being late when there were restrictions on their movements, those kinds of things.

Seven of the one hundred and thirty-five who reoffended did it in a non-violent manner and two offended violently. Therefore, nine people reoffended out of the total number of cases that were looked at, seven in a non-violent manner and two offended violently. I believe a number of the seven offences were also related to drugs.

That is a whole other issue that we could talk about. We could talk about how our criminal legislation around drugs serves our communities, how well it has served us and the problems with that, but that is probably for another debate.

Of the two offenders who offended violently, one was found guilty of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of assault using force and the other offender was found guilty of one count of robbery.

I am not going to make any bones about it. Those are serious crimes and serious issues, but these people were charged and convicted in court and are back in jail.

To put it succinctly, since 1987, there have been thousands of offenders who were eligible for early parole. Only 181 chose to apply. Out of those 181, only 135 received a reduction in their sentence. Less than 15%, in fact, of those eligible have applied.

Some of the talk about the legislation comes about because there is somehow this impression that we treat people who have committed murder in Canada lightly, that somehow we are soft on that crime in Canada and that people do not serve a lot of time in Canadian prisons for the crime of murder. In fact, it turns out that is absolutely the furthest from the truth.

It has been shown that the average time served in prison for first degree murder in Canada is 28.4 years. That is one of the longest average times in any country in the world. In comparison, in the United States, the average time incarcerated is 23 years. In many other countries, it is even shorter than that. Certainly in countries like New Zealand, Scotland, Switzerland and England, the average time spent incarcerated for murder is under 15 years.

The fact is that Canada does treat this crime far more severely than many of the countries to which we would want to be compared and significantly more when we look at the average time people spend in prison. It is not something that we are being soft on. We are taking advantage of the possibility of incarceration. We are ensuring that people spend a significant time in jail.

There may be problems with that. Perhaps that is something we should be looking at as it may not be serving us well. In terms of the whole argument that somehow we are soft on crime and this is an issue that needs to be addressed by this Parliament, it turns out that is baloney because we are in fact much more severe than almost any other country we would choose to compare ourselves to. That is something that is also crucial to know in this process.

We have a process that we have had long experience with and that has been in place for over 25 years, probably even longer than that because it was in place for probably a decade before that. There were some changes made to it in the late 1980s. We have good experience with this. It is a program that has been successful, that has shown real and positive results for both people who have been incarcerated in our system and for the communities from which they come and to which they often return. It has shown that citizens can be engaged in a meaningful way in making determinations about their safety and the safety of their communities and decisions about who has been successfully rehabilitated. Citizens get to apply those standards that they believe are most important in making that kind of determination.

If there is a reason why we should reject this legislation, it is because it very clearly eliminates the possibility of citizen engagement in this very important process. This is something that has evolved over time and is something that we have shown great leadership in, establishing this kind of process that allows citizens to make important decisions about parole eligibility for people who have committed the most serious crimes possible in our society. It speaks well to our society that we both make that possibility available and that we also engage citizens directly in making the ultimate decisions about who gets out early, about who has been successfully rehabilitated. The process engages judges with discretion and engages a very senior level of judiciary in this decision-making process. That is also very important. It is important to give judges that discretion and that they exercise discretion on our behalf. After all, they are experts in this area. That is something that is also very important and a key aspect of this process.

As well, we must remember that the parole system continues to be engaged, that even the small number of people who do successfully complete this process remain on parole for the remainder of their lives and under strict supervision by the people who run our parole system.

I recently met with representatives of the parole system in my community. I was very impressed by the work that they do on our behalf in Burnaby and in New Westminster where the office is located. It is a very important contribution they make to the safety of our community and to the hopes of our society, that people can turn their lives around and be successfully integrated back into the community. It is important that we acknowledge the work that they do. It is very difficult work. They are often under great scrutiny for the decisions that they make. I am not sure that we always appreciate all that goes into an understanding, a determination of parole and that ongoing supervisory role that people engage when they are released from a correctional institution in Canada. I want to salute parole officers and the people in the parole system for the important work that they do.

All in all, this is a very flawed bill. It eliminates the possibility for hope, for redemption, as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway so clearly pointed out in his speech a few minutes ago. We should be very cautious about eliminating this from our system. When we eliminate the possibility of hope, even from those who have committed the most serious crimes, we do not make our society any safer, nor do we make it any better and the bill takes us down absolutely the wrong course.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. Because of the recess, we have become a little relaxed on things. I apologize very much for that.

The Prime Minister of Canada killed his own bill. The Prime Minister of Canada took the legs out from underneath the Minister of Justice. However, he survived another day and then waited 48 more days to introduce this bill that is so important.

I will go back to the bill. On its merits, the bill is tough on crime. It sure is. It is late on crime, very late. There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. If the minister believes so vehemently in this bill, why did he delay it so much and do injustice to the people of Canada? That is a good question.

Some of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the House, have tried to describe us on this side as weak on crime. Nothing could be more false. I wish our laws were tougher on a wide range of crimes. I wish the government and the minister would act with more dispatch on the important aspects that threaten Canadians today. Not two crimes out of 1,500 since 1987. There are far more important and urgent issues that involve the security of our public than this issue. Even when the Conservatives profess to think it is an important issue, they delay the heck out of it.

I consider the sentencing principles of denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring offences, and the separation of offenders from society to be very important. They are in the code that we believe in, the Criminal Code section 718. Every law should be seen through the prism of section 718 because it affects the balance of how we treat offenders. It is the Criminal Code. It is to put criminals in programs, including incarceration, that deal with their crimes. First of all there has to be an offender, there has to be a crime, and there has to be a punishment. We are talking about the punishment phase here.

The case that Liberal colleagues want to keep Canadians safe cannot be disputed. We want this country to be tougher on crimes and we believe we have very good ideas on how to get tougher. This does not mean we have to buy into the ridiculous idea that Bill S-6 is going to make Canada tough on crime. Let me be clear. The Liberals are not opposed to the repeal of the faint hope clause in this instance. The questions are why it took so long, why they are targeting something that is so minor in impact, and why they are dilly-dallying on the important criminal laws that need to be enacted.

Repealing the faint hope clause will likely have no drastic effect whatsoever. It affects such a small group of individuals that what negative impact it could have will likely be very limited. So we will not oppose it. However, we have to object to the shameless promotion of the so-called toughness of the bill and the whole Conservative agenda on fighting crime. It goes right to the top, not to the Prime Minister in this case, but to the short title.

The Minister of Justice went on about how inane it is to attack a short title. It is what Canadians believe the bill to be when they look at the short title. Someone looking at the short title of this bill, which was clearly crafted by some republican hack who also writes the tops of cereal boxes, would not have any clue what phase in the criminal justice system this deals with, and could not be guided by the short title.

This bill deals with the faint hope clause. It is to live or die, to eliminate it, to modify it, to let it live another day. That is what the bill is about. People may understand that, but they certainly would not understand the shameless self-promoting title chosen by the Conservatives, which engenders that they want a snappy title, they want to over-promise and under-deliver. Finally, it is their job every night to put the fear of potential harm that does not exist in the hearts and minds of Canadians.

Wow, what leadership that is, to say, “I am your leader and I am going to scare you tonight. Look at the 7 o'clock news”. That is what the government does, and in this crime, the Minister of Justice is an accomplice of the Prime Minister of Canada.

I am ready to support a government, if we could see one that would be tough on crime. However, the only thing tough about these bills is the short title. Getting to that, the short title of the bill is “Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act”.

If the Conservatives want to write poetry, if they want to write television titles, they should choose another occupation. However, if they want to stick to the realm of criminal law, they should look at the Criminal Code and pick titles that relate to it.

We Liberals have amended the bill to remove the short title. We amended the short title because it was disingenuous and misleading. Criminals who receive life sentences in Canada do serve serious time. How dare the Conservatives accuse us of delaying this bill for refusing to agree to a short title that tries to create a problem that does not exist.

Perhaps the problem is one of perception and the Progressive Conservatives, of which the Minister of Justice was a proud member and a cabinet member himself, can be part of the explanation as to why we have a perception problem with respect to life sentences for first degree murder, for example. If we asked Canadians what happens when someone is convicted of first degree murder, the answer would be that one gets a life sentence. I bet if we asked if that meant serving life in prison, most Canadians would think so.

We have to remember it was a Liberal government that enacted this law as a compromise for eliminating the death penalty. This very intricate compromise has been upheld by the Supreme Court and commented upon. It seems to be the balance with which we have lived in Canada for a long time. It says that a person who commits first degree murder will receive a life sentence and will be eligible for parole after 25 years served.

In addition, this faint hope clause we speak of recognizes that if after 15 years in prison a first degree murderer has shown elements of rehabilitation, denounces his or her own unlawful conduct, is likely to be deterred for life and fits all of the sentencing principles that we have lived with in society, that person might be eligible for early parole after passing through a whole series of hoops, including the empanelling of a jury, the selection of a chief justice to review the file and finally a parole hearing. That is a lot of hoops to go through. As I have said, of 1,500 who were eligible, I think only 146 actually received the faint hope consideration or early parole.

Let us remember the years when a Conservative government was in power. It did nothing to change these provisions of the Criminal Code because Progressive Conservatives believed that this was an adequate balance. However, today the Alliance Reform Conservatives believe this is an urgent and pressing problem. It is so urgent that they introduced it, let it die by their own hand and took 48 days to reintroduce it. They are really ragging the puck on something that is so urgent.

What is urgent for the Conservatives is to get out before the media and say that there is a real problem with murderers running around the streets of our home towns and they are going to make sure they never get out of prison. It is disingenuous because, in this chamber at least, everybody knows that a life sentence means 25 years with eligibility for parole. Everyone knows that in Canada the average sentence served is about 28 years for a first degree murder. Everybody should know that is just behind the United States where first degree murder has a combination of the death penalty and 29-odd years.

Everyone should also know that there are developed, civilized, important countries of the world that have average time served for first degree murder at a much lower number of years: 10, 11, 12 and 13 years for countries like Britain, Belgium, Australia and the Antipodes.

We are not lax on crime. If I were to take credit for this legislation as a Liberal from the 1970s, one could not say that being just a hair under the United States for time served is lax on crime. It can be said on a newscast and said in here, but out in the public there ought to be a little more truth and sincerity when addressing important issues such as crime and justice. That has been lacking in the whole debate on crime since I came here in 2006.

At committee we have had expert witnesses tell us that not only is there no evidence to suggest that the elimination of the faint hope clause will make our communities safer, but Canada is a world leader, as I just mentioned, in incarceration times. It means then we are tough on crime already in this respect.

I have underscored before that hope is already faint. Correctional Service Canada shows that the average time spent is actually 28.4 years, 10 years longer than in many other countries. Hope is already faint for criminals here. Time in custody is already serious for criminals.

I had occasion, after we rose in December, to visit Dorchester Penitentiary and to see the conditions under which criminals were kept. I heard from wardens and officials at one of our oldest units in the country. The said that they lived a bit in fiscal and security fear of what the Conservative government had in mind by overpopulating a prison that was as old, almost, as Confederation itself.

Time in custody is already serious. If it is the government's will to make hope even fainter for criminals, we cannot say that two individuals is a track record of a failure in this regard. What we have to say is that this overall section affects so few criminals and people in our country that it is not really the object we want to talk about today. We want to talk about what the government has done in other serious areas of the law in law reform.

As I have already mentioned, this bill will have a very limited effect on very few criminals. The faint hope clause has been in effect for 30 years and has made it possible for 130 people to be paroled.

The Conservatives are trying to make us believe that the bill tackles a serious problem. Is that how they protect Canadians and show respect for victims? Criminals are not fools, and neither are victims. Bills such as this will not reduce the crime rate. What this bill really does is make a minor change to how a small number of inmates are paroled.

The Liberal Party will vote in favour of this bill as quickly as possible because it is waiting impatiently for this government to bring forward a bill that is truly tough on crime.

We want to move on with the bill so the government can have the time and space to put forward a bill that is truly tough on crime. At the justice committee five different witnesses have said the same thing, that the bill is not tough on crime. As John Howard Society told us in its committee submission:

Eliminating the faint hope clause, which in practice only allows the earlier application for parole of a handful of already assessed, low-risk, rehabilitated applicants who have already served at minimum 15 years...is unnecessary...and will not improve community safety.

One would have thought in the ensuing years since Bill C-36 was introduced that there might have been new evidence. Alas, there was not.

The aspect of keeping people safe is far different than making them feel that they are safe. The government does a deep disservice to the latter by fearmongering and causing Canadians to feel that the system is not working. It is almost tantamount to treason to say that our criminal justice system does not work.

When first elected, Conservatives and the Prime Minister of Canada were not reluctant to say that Liberal-appointed judges were weak on crime. He also said, in his drive-by schmear, that the Liberal-appointed Senate was useless.

With the passage of time, Conservatives have now had their hands on the rudder for over five years and have appointed a lot of judges to the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal. I do not hear in the Prime Minister's speeches that it is now the fault of judges or that it is no longer the Senate's fault. Talk about victims. He is blaming a narrow number of victims for the perception that the battle on crime is not working because Conservatives have done precious little to actually attack crime. All they have done is make people feel that there is more crime.

This is the conundrum we have. If we speak against a law and order bill, we look like we are pro victim. If the government speaks against the judiciary, it looks like it is undermining the system. What it all means, unfortunately, is that Canadians cannot get a true picture of what is going on with respect to criminality in our country.

I would lay down the sword, along with the Minister of Justice and others, and say that some of us are lawyers and officers of the court. Law societies would be looking at me if I denied it, but that is extremely important. However, we have a higher duty than that. We have a duty to the Canadian public to be truthful and earnest and say, yes, that there are growing areas of crime that we need to attack surgically by implementations that we have spoken about at an all party committee in an in camera meeting. We have talked to judges in camera and know that these tools would be useful in fighting that criminality.

It is not helpful to go on the six o'clock news and say that it is a mess out there, that it is riotous, that judges and prosecutors do not care, that the opposition will not pass government bills, that people should head for the hills, lock their doors and turn out the lights or that they should get a shotgun because they do not have to register them anymore. The point is it is a disservice that all in Parliament is doing to the perception of public safety.

Let us talk about the Liberal agenda. Since prorogation, we have seen a series of bills on criminal law that simply fail to meet the expectation of being tough on crime. We have a different idea about being tough on crime. We want our country to be tough on crime we want to protect and respect victims. We will achieve that end with solutions that are based on evidence and on fact, not on being gluttons for glamour, TV, publicity and fearmongering that those on the other side are. The science of criminology has produced a multitude of sophisticated evidence based on research and fact and we are told how effectively tough on crime certain bills are.

In summary, it seems that the only part of justice the government gets is the word “just”. We want to protect the victims in the funding of witness protection programs and counselling not by just funding the advertising of victims' abuse programs. We want to fund crime prevention so we can avoid crimes altogether not just try to scare people with harsher punishment that we know to be ineffective. We want to equip police officers not just throw even longer sentences at criminals.

I will conclude with a real-life situation. People should talk to corrections officers at a place like Dorchester and ask them if they are not a little afraid about public safety with the onslaught of prisoners who are coming in without the adequate resources and training within the institutions. What are those inmates going to do when they get out of overcrowded prisons with no treatment? That will be cause for fear some day and it has to be corrected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the remarks of the minister to be stale in the chamber before I inform him and the House that in the history of judicial review under this clause involving over 1,500 eligible offenders, 181 reached the stage of court decisions, 146 were granted parole before their 25 year eligibility, and out of 146, two offended. I am afraid that the minister is not aware of that otherwise he would not go into the hyperbole that my friend speaks of.

The minister wants to put in the minds of Canadians an enormous problem that has to be dealt with urgently by legislation but he does not want to tell the public that when his government was elected in October 2008 it killed its own Bill C-36, which was similar to this bill almost in its entirety. The Conservatives killed their own bill in December 2009 of their own volition. That minister must have stood behind his Prime Minister and said that is fine even though a lot of people in his riding of Niagara Falls want the bill. I did not read about any dissent. I never read about any dissent on that side. It is not like there is a lot of independent dissenting thinking going on over there.

So the Conservatives killed their own bill in December 2009 and then after prorogation took 48 days to introduce this bill, essentially the same bill. It is not like those members are in a hurry with respect to the faint hope clause. It is not like the minister can go to his constituents in Niagara Falls and claim he is blameless, that he thought Mr. Harper should not have prorogued Parliament, that he thought this bill should--

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a couple of questions, because it seems to me that we have very faint hope of actually getting straight answers from the minister on simple questions like this: why was this bill delayed?

He talked about Bill C-36 in the previous Parliament. Where was it in December 2009? It was well on its way to going through committee, and his government, his Prime Minister, cut the legs out from under him by proroguing Parliament.

It started at the bottom of the pile as the current bill in April 2010. Four months take place; it is the government's fault. Prorogation occurs; it is the government's fault.

The bill makes its way through the Senate and makes its way to the House only in September 2010. Why the delay? Why is the Prime Minister cutting the feet out from underneath the minister?

Second, on this bill itself, I want him to tell me precisely how many of the 146 persons who were given parole earlier than they were eligible for under this section of the Criminal Code have reoffended in the history of this offence? Is it one? Is it 20? Is it 40? How many is it? He should know the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on the government's Bill S-6 at report stage.

The government, through its Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, was all over the media yesterday denouncing the three opposition parties and claiming that the opposition was delaying government bills in general, and Bill S-6 in particular.

I would like to put certain facts before the House. Bill S-6 in the previous session of the 40th Parliament was Bill C-36. The government tabled it in the House. The bill went through the three stages in the House, was adopted and sent over to the Senate. The government, in its wisdom, did not move second reading in the Senate. Instead, the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House in December 2009. The House was prorogued for close to two and a half months.

When the second session of the 40th Parliament began on March 3, there was a throne speech. Did the government at its first opportunity reintroduce Bill C-36? No, it did not. It waited 48 days after the throne speech before tabling its legislation again. Then after tabling it 48 days after the throne speech, it let the bill sit, collecting dust, for 99 days before it moved second reading debate. If anyone has held up this bill it is not the opposition, definitely not the official opposition, but the government itself.

The government counts on the fact that most Canadians are not paying enough attention to what is actually happening in the House and what the procedures are to realize that it is their own government that is holding up its own justice legislation.

One could speculate on the reasons the Conservative government has for doing do that. I speculate, given that every end of session in December and June for close to the last five years, the minister of justice, whoever he or she has been under the Conservative government, has gone to the media to claim that the opposition is holding up the government's justice bills and if the opposition would be conciliatory and work with the government, the justice bills would get through.

When we look at each of the bills the government identifies at each one of those periods, June and December of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010, those are the very bills that the government itself has held up, either by letting them sit at first reading and not moving second reading debate, or by not even introducing them initially.

With those facts on the record, I would like now to speak to the content of Bill S-6.

We know that victims and their families want the faint hope clause to be abolished. No one wants those found guilty of serious crimes to get out of jail without serving a long enough sentence. It is for that reason that when we, the Liberals, were in government, we placed restrictions on the faint hope clause so that anyone found guilty of multiple murders would not be eligible. Contrary to the claims of the Conservative government, the amendments it is proposing to make to the law will not apply to dangerous criminals such as Clifford Olson. Russell Williams also will not be able to avail himself of the faint hope clause to obtain a judicial review because of the changes made by the previous Liberal government.

The faint hope clause, also known as judicial review, gives inmates who are serving a life sentence the opportunity to request a judicial review after 15 years of incarceration in order to determine whether or not they may apply for parole. Parole is not automatically granted. The application must first be heard by a jury selected from members of the community where the crime took place. If the 12 jurors unanimously agree, the inmate may apply to the National Parole Board. If the inmate proceeds, the National Parole Board determines whether the inmate, once released, may pose a risk to society or if release will contribute to his or her rehabilitation.

The Liberals believe that a balance must be struck between punishment and rehabilitation in our correctional system. We would like the government to invest more in crime prevention and programs for the victims of crime. Although the faint hope clause helps make our prisons safer and contributes to the rehabilitation of offenders, we believe that access to it must be limited.

The government is not taking into consideration the facts around the faint hope clause. Despite this clause, someone convicted of premeditated murder in Canada serves 28 years in prison on average. That is longer than in any other country that imposes life sentences with possibility of parole, including the United States. Prison guards feel that the faint hope clause helps keep them safe. The Correctional Investigator of Canada believes that the current faint hope clause serves the purpose for which it was conceived.

The Liberals proposed amendments to the Conservative bill in response to calls from various victims' groups. These groups told us that they live in a constant state of anxiety because of the faint hope clause, so we amended the bill to require that the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada notify victims when an inmate applies for judicial review of his case. The commissioner already notifies victims' families when an inmate applies for judicial review. But under the current law, the commissioner is not required to notify victims' families when an inmate does not apply. Under the bill, once the inmate's opportunity to apply has passed, he must wait five years before reapplying.

The Liberal amendment moved and passed with the support of the Bloc and the NDP was as follows.

When an inmate does not exercise his right to apply for a judicial review under the faint hope clause, the commissioner should notify the families and indicate the next date on which the inmate will be eligible to apply. Unfortunately, the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights voted against this amendment. I am puzzled by that.

We also proposed a second amendment that would extend the 90-day period for applying for a judicial review to a maximum of 180 days when the judge feels that extraordinary circumstances beyond the inmate's control prevented him from applying within the 90-day period.

I will stop here, because I see that my time is up. I invite hon. members to ask me questions.

[Gilles Trudeau, Director, Office of Criminal Affairs and Matters, Barreau du Québec]

Good after noon, Mr. Chair, and members. I would first like to explain certain rules for how the Barreau du Québec operates and how it adopts its policies or positions.

With me today are Nicole Dufour and our articling student, François. I will be speaking on behalf of the Barreau du Québec.

The position I will be presenting today is the result of consultations held by a standing committee on criminal law at the Barreau du Québec. The members of that committee are professors, federal and provincial prosecutors and defence counsel. The Barreau du Québec does not take any position unless its criminal law committee has reached a consensus. So the comments I will be making represent the consensus in Quebec among professors, Crown prosecutors and defence counsel, and in our opinion this lends considerable weight to the Barreau's contribution.

We had the impression that the documentation provided to the Senate would be transferred to you; we have learned that this was not the case, so we will send the clerk of your committee the written position of the Bâtonnier du Québec.

Obviously, this is a reintroduced bill. The Barreau du Québec had taken a position when Bill C-36 was introduced, which is now called S-6. Given the extent of the amendments, we want to provide you with our comments.

The purpose of Bill S-6 is to amend the rules set out in sections 745.6 et seq. of the Criminal Code. If the proposed amendments are adopted, the bill that we knew as the "faint hope" clause will be eliminated for murders committed after this law comes into force and for individuals who are serving sentences. I will summarize it as follows: Parliament is deliberately complicating the application and eliminating judicial discretion, and is also using procedural subterfuges to introduce a mandatory 90-day deadline for making an application.

We would remind you of what Parliament's intention was when it enacted section 745.6. That provision followed on the abolition of the death penalty in 1976. For a person convicted of first degree murder, the sentence was then to be imprisonment for life with no possibility of parole before 25 years had been served. At the time, that parole eligibility period was described as a necessary compromise for abolishing the death penalty. The faint hope clause was then adopted to give the convicted person a glimmer of hope, to leave some incentive when such a severe punishment is imposed for the most serious crimes. It allows a convicted person to be granted parole before serving 25 years of their life sentence, if they show that they are capable of reintegrating into society and if they demonstrate good conduct in prison; I will add, exemplary conduct.

Given the possibility of the remission of what may be as much as 10 years of their sentence, an inmate has an incentive to mend their ways and adopt a course of conduct that will make their application for a reduction of the parole eligibility period more likely to succeed. The inmate is then better able to cope with the despair caused by sentencing someone to life imprisonment, because of the realistic possibility available to them of reintegrating into society before their life is over.

Considering that the objective of section 745.6 is to give a person convicted of murder a faint hope, to encourage them to change for the better, the Barreau du Québec wonders what motivates the government to deny the value of that objective. The Barreau du Québec has stated its views in the past on a bill with the same objectives, Bill C-45, which was introduced in 1994, at which time it stated that it opposed the proposed amendments to that section.

In the Barreau's opinion, the process set out in section 745.6 was working perfectly and did not need any legislative amendment. We believe it is still of the same opinion and the figures disclosed by Don Head prove very clearly that the system is working for people who are incarcerated for a serious crime. It is working, since out of the 4,000 and more people who have been imprisoned for sentences, ultimately only the most deserving have been able to pass the review, the review by a judge, first, and then by a jury. The jury is important here; it is the jury of the community where the offence took place, and it is they who are given the task of making the finding of guilt. They have the power, on behalf of the community, to allow the individual to apply to Ms. Pelletier so that hearings will be held in order that they might eventually be released.

The bill shifts the preliminary burden that the judge will have to consider and introduces the concept of substantial likelihood, when the burden is lower at present. That seems to us to be a way of further complicating the way this process is initiated, for a person who, notwithstanding the complete good faith of the Correctional Service, is an inmate who will have to make applications to obtain their files and deal with the delays and difficulty involved in obtaining complete documentation.

On that point, I know that the committee has heard the very eloquent testimony of Kim Pate, who told you about the maze she has had to navigate to help some women make their applications.

In Vaillancourt v. Solicitor General of Canada, the Supreme Court of Ontario held that the present review process struck a fair balance between the need to show clemency to a convicted person whose conduct while serving their sentence is good, which may contribute to their reintegration into society, and the interests of the community, which demands that the act that led to incarceration of the offender be denounced.

On that point, we want to draw your attention to the statistics. The Bâtonnier provided 2009 statistics; we have had the benefit of having up to date statistics. I also think those statistics speak volumes.

The Barreau is also concerned that the effect of the bill, if it is passed, will be to fetter judicial discretion. The Criminal Code provides only general guidelines that apply to the application, and under the provision of the Code the jury must make a decision based on the character of the applicant, their conduct while serving their sentence, the nature of the offence, and any other matters they consider relevant in the circumstances. That discretion is assigned to the jury. As well, when it refuses an application, the minimum time before making a new application would now be five years; currently, it is two years. This also fetters judicial discretion. The judge is the person in the best position to determine when a new application may be made. It would therefore be preferable to give the judge discretion to make five years the time for a new application, while making two years the minimum, rather than setting a mandatory minimum time of five years.

The Barreau du Québec is also concerned about the introduction of a mandatory 90-day deadline, when in many situations the person will have to apply for judicial review to the chief justice of the province in which the crime took place, which is often different from where they are incarcerated. So this is not a simple matter. It is so complicated, in fact, that there has been an agreement between the federal government and the provinces to ensure that legal aid schemes agree to pay a lawyer in each province. The file has to be transferred, and in some cases the records and documents have to be translated. While this is clear to us lawyers, it may be less clear for people who are not lawyers, in spite of the complete good faith on the part of the Correctional Service and the accused. In Quebec, we have a form about four pages long to be filled out to be able to make an application, which is examined by the Superior Court judge.

On behalf of the Barreau du Québec, I think that if the government's intention is to amend an Act to make sentences of imprisonment harsher, that is certainly not an intention supported by a criminological study of victims. We do not see how this bill could help victims; quite the contrary. We believe that in the Criminal Code as it now stands, all of the information needed for making victims feel safe and explaining the judicial process to them is there, specifically section 745.01, which requires that the judge read the sentence and, in passing sentence, tell the entire community that although the individual has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, they may, in certain cases and after a certain time, apply to a jury for the opportunity to apply for early parole.

Thank you.

[Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll actually try to keep my comments under the 10 minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to come before you today to discuss Bill S-6, which will eliminate the faint hope clause.

As you may recall, I appeared before you one year ago to discuss Bill C-36, which sought to achieve the same objective, and that is to eliminate early judicial review for those convicted of the most serious offences. Today I will cover two key areas in my introductory remarks, and of course I will then be happy to answer any questions you may have for me.

First I'd like to provide you with some key statistics related to our population of offenders serving life sentences who would be affected by this proposed legislation. Then I would like to provide you with a quick overview of Correctional Service of Canada's processes for supporting the courts when an offender decides to seek judicial review.

With respect to numbers, as of October 10, 2010, there were 1,508 offenders with cases applicable for judicial review. That is, they were eligible to apply to have their parole eligibility date modified. Historically, since the first judicial review hearing in 1987, there have been a total of 181 court decisions. Of these cases, 146 of the court decisions resulted in a reduction of the period that must be served before parole eligibility, and 35 resulted in a refusal.

Of the 146 offenders who have had their parole eligibility dates moved earlier, 144 have now reached their revised day parole eligibility date and 135 have been granted parole. Of these 135 offenders, 68, or about half, had no issue during supervision; 35 received a suspension but were not subsequently revoked; and 23 had their parole revoked. Seven of the 135 reoffended in a non-violent manner and two reoffended violently. Of the two offenders who reoffended violently, one was found guilty of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of assault use of force, and the other offender was found guilty of one count of robbery.

While we're on the topic of numbers, I should also note that the proposed changes to the International Transfer of Offenders Act would have a minor effect with respect to judicial review. Of the more than 1,500 offenders who have been transferred back to Canada since the legislation came into force in 1978, only 28 were individuals serving life sentences. Of these, only nine are serving sentences for first-degree murder. Of the 300 active cases that we are currently reviewing for potential transfer back to Canada, only seven offenders would potentially have first-degree murder sentences. And I say “potentially” because international legal parallels are complicated, and each case has to be reviewed by legal experts to ascertain the appropriate equivalent sentence in Canada. All this being said, we would expect a negligible impact in Canada, as other jurisdictions as a general rule are extremely reticent to allow international transfers for what we could consider first-degree murder.

With respect to how Correctional Service Canada supports the judicial review process, this is governed by “Commissioner's Directive 710-5: Judicial Review”. Twelve months before the offender's judicial review eligibility date, an institutional parole officer, or primary worker in the case of women offenders, would meet with the offender to determine whether he or she intends to submit an application. In addition, our staff would advise the offender at that time of their responsibility to engage legal counsel.

Our staff also works with the offender to facilitate a transfer to the jurisdiction where the hearing will be held if the offender requests the move. Alternatively, participation at judicial review can also be accomplished through escorted temporary absences. In addition, staff would advise him or her to request access to their file through access to information, so this can be shared with their legal counsel. Furthermore, the parole officer or primary worker ensures that a psychiatric and/or psychological assessment is completed in the 12 months leading up to the application, as well as a judicial review report.

The judicial review report follows the form we use for determining parole eligibility. It covers six areas: the offender's social, family, and criminal background; his or her sentence administration dates; summary of transfers and any disciplinary actions; summary of the offender's performance and conduct; any assessments done by psychiatrists, psychologists, or elders; and, finally, the offender's personal development.

As you can see, CSC provides an invaluable contribution to the process that determines whether an offender is a suitable candidate for parole, whether that be through judicial review, as is the subject of this proposed legislation, or normal avenues for release.

As always, public safety is our paramount consideration. The offenders in our care all come from communities across this country and most will return there. It is the job of the Correctional Service of Canada to manage their sentence from the day they enter our facility, through their incarceration, and out into the community. We do so with a constant eye to achieving good correctional results for Canada and Canadians.

Mr. Chair, committee members, I thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to have the opportunity once again to meet with the members of the committee to discuss legislation providing for serious time for the most serious crime.

I appeared before this committee just over a year ago to discuss these amendments. At that time they originated in the bill known as Bill C-36, but since then this Criminal Code package was re-introduced in virtually identical form in the other place as Bill S-6 in June 2010. It was passed by the Senate without amendment and is now before you for examination.

Let me begin by recapping the current state of the law with respect to murder. Section 745 of the Criminal Code provides that convictions of first- and second-degree murder carry mandatory terms of life imprisonment, with mandatory periods of parole ineligibility. For first-degree murder that period is 25 years. It's also 25 years for anyone convicted of second-degree murder who was previously convicted of either first- or second-degree murder under domestic law or an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. For all other second-degree murders, an offender must serve a minimum of ten years in custody. However, a judge may increase this to a maximum of 25 years, in light of the offender's character, nature, or circumstances of the crime, and any jury recommendation.

The parole ineligibility period set by the judge is part of a sentence that is read out in open court. Given the serious nature of murder, I think Canadians would agree that a period of up to 25 years of custody prior to being able to apply for parole is reasonable. I would assert that the 25-year parole ineligibility could and should be longer, especially in the cases of multiple murderers. As you know, that is another issue that our government has addressed through Bill C-48, a piece of legislation you will be asked to consider very shortly.

The core of the issue before us today is the so-called faint hope clause and its related provisions. It allows a murderer to apply for early parole after serving only 15 years, despite what the Criminal Code stipulates in section 745 and despite whatever longer period of time a judge may have imposed. We find this unacceptable. We were elected on a promise to restrict the availability of faint hope for offenders who are already incarcerated and to eliminate it completely for future offenders. Bill S-6, the bill before you, keeps both of those promises.

I would like to concentrate for a moment on the context in which these proposed criminal amendments have arisen. I believe it's necessary to clarify exactly how and why this bill was drafted and what it sets out to achieve. Since the first applications began to come forward in the late 1980s, the faint hope regime has been a source of concern among Canadians. They are disturbed and confused by a process that seems to allow murderers to circumvent the sentence imposed on them in open court after a fair and public trial. They see it as an affront to truth in sentencing, and they argue that a life sentence of imprisonment ought to mean just that.

Many refer to the faint hope regime as the loophole for lifers that can undermine the protection of society, because the system affords leniency to murderers, whose crimes demand severe punishment. Even worse, and perhaps most importantly, victims have told me about the additional trauma inflicted on their families and loved ones. They live in constant dread that the killer who robbed them of their loved one may one day bring forward a faint hope application. This review process forces victims to relive the details of the horrible crimes they have suffered again and again.

We want to spare these victims the anguish of parole eligibility hearings. We believe the justice system must not put those rights of individuals ahead of those of victims and law-abiding Canadians. The measures proposed in Bill S-6 are in direct response to these concerns and aim to accomplish three goals.

First is to restore the truth in sentencing by ensuring the sentence pronounced on a convicted murderer in open court is the sentence that is served. Second is to keep those convicted of the most serious crimes in prison for lengthier periods of time commensurate with the gravity of their crimes. Third is to help ensure that the families and loved ones of murder victims are not themselves revictimized at the whim of a convicted murderer who decides to bring forward an application for early parole that forces them to relive the pain of their original loss.

These are reasonable and compassionate goals, and I hope committee members would keep them in mind as they examine Bill S-6, because Bill S-6 will bar everyone who commits murder in the future from applying for faint hope. Thus, all those who committed these offences after Bill S-6 comes into force will no longer be able to apply for a parole eligibility date earlier than that imposed by the judge at the time of sentencing.

As for those who presently have the right to apply for faint hope, Bill S-6 will tighten up the application procedure to screen out applications that are unlikely to succeed and to restrict when and how often an offender may apply. This tighter procedure will apply to those who commit offences prior to the coming into force date. This means that those who are currently serving a life sentence in prison, those who have been convicted of murder but have not yet been sentenced, and those charged with a murder that occurred prior to the coming into force date and who are convicted--all will be subject to this new, stricter procedure.

I would like to briefly describe how two of the three stages of the current procedure would change. At the first stage of the current process, an applicant must convince a judge in the province where the conviction occurred that there is “a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed”. The court describes this threshold as being “relatively low”.

Under Bill S-6, an applicant would have to prove that the application has a substantial likelihood of success. This significantly higher standard will screen out flawed applications at the outset. It would also impose new time limits. Currently, the minimum period an applicant has to wait to reapply to a judge is two years after the initial rejection. Under this bill, an applicant would have to wait at least five years. The change from two to five years will create more certainty for the families of victims about when a faint hope hearing will occur and limit the number of applications that can be made, thereby reducing the trauma these hearings inflict upon victims.

Presently, an offender can apply for faint hope at any point after serving 15 years. Bill S-6 would change this by establishing a 90-day application window. In short, the applicants will have to apply within three months of becoming eligible, failing which they must wait a further five years, and then they will have again three months to apply. This proposed change will spare victims' families and loved ones from living in dread, uncertain of when or if a convicted killer will revive their suffering by seeking early parole.

Someone who succeeds at the second stage of the application may then go directly to the parole board for early parole. Bill S-6 doesn't change that. Colleagues, let me be clear: Bill S-6 does not affect the normal parole application process. There is nothing in this bill that in any way denies convicted murderers the chance to rehabilitate themselves or to apply for parole in the normal course once the parole ineligibility period imposed at the time of sentencing has expired. The bill simply requires offenders to serve their full sentence for the reasons I have outlined.

As I've said many times before, this government is committed to restoring balance in Canada's criminal justice system by standing up for the interests of law-abiding citizens and ensuring that the families and loved ones and victims are not themselves made victims by the justice system.

Mr. Chair, this is a fair, balanced, and reasonable reform of a controversial area of the law, and I urge all members of this committee to support this bill and hasten its passage into law. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who has made an excellent presentation on this bill, as well as the NDP critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who spoke to the bill earlier today.

As I pulled out my file on what is now Bill S-6, I noticed that it was labelled as Bill C-36 from last year. I have only been here not quite two years yet and already I am finding my files are rather heavy and there are multiple numbers for essentially the same bill. Perhaps this will be the last iteration of this bill. Let us hope that the government does not see its way to proroguing the House again or finding another way that would cause us to have to start this all over again.

This particular bill, now Bill S-6, is an act to amend the Criminal Code and another act. It was given first reading in the Senate on April 20 of this year. The bill would amend the provisions of the Criminal Code regarding the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to apply for early parole. This is done through the elimination of the faint hope clause by which those given a life sentence for murder or high treason could apply for parole after having served 15 years of their sentence.

A similar predecessor bill, Bill C-36, as I mentioned before, was introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament but did not become law because of the abrupt ending of the session on December 30 when the Prime Minister prorogued the House.

In terms of the history of section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, it is known informally as the “faint hope clause” because it provides offenders serving a sentence for high treason or murder with the possibility of parole after having served 15 years. We will see later that there are a number of comparable countries to Canada with similar systems that have a much lower number of years for murderers to serve.

In our case, it is 15 years, where the sentence is imprisonment for life without the eligibility of parole for more than 15 years. Offenders convicted of first degree murder receive life imprisonment as a minimum sentence with the earliest eligibility for parole set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, with the judge setting parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years. Those serving a life sentence can be released from prison only if granted parole by the National Parole Board.

Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of a fixed length, for example, 2 years, 10 years or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole, they remain subject for the rest of their lives to the conditions of the parole and supervision of a Correctional Service of Canada parole officer. Parole may be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole or commit a new offence.

Not all lifers are in fact granted parole. Some are never released on parole because the risk of their reoffending is too great. In fact, I will look later at the numbers of people involved in this situation and we will find that a very small number of people in prison, at the end of the day, would get parole.

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

The inmate must have served at least 15 years of the sentence. As a matter of fact, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh pointed out this morning that it is usually around 17 years before applicants normally apply and that in fact very few people actually do apply even at that point.

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

To seek a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole, the offender must apply to the chief justice of the province or territory in which his or her conviction took place.

The chief justice, or a Superior Court judge designated by the chief justice, must first determine whether the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application for review will succeed. The assessment is based on the following criteria.

One is the character of the applicant. We have already mentioned that we have excluded multiple murderers from the applying in this case, so the judge has to look at the character of the applicant. If the character is bad, that person would not qualify.

Another criterion is the applicant's conduct while serving the sentence. I am assuming that if the applicant has been involved in something like a prison riot or some other altercation with other inmates within the prison or just has not co-operated, that too would disqualify him or her from applying.

Next is the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted. That too, would vary with the individual.

Another one is any information provided by victims at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of the hearing under this section. So once again we are looking at victim impact statements. The judge then has a better opportunity to look at the total picture of each and every situation.

Finally, any other matters that the judge considers relevant in the circumstances can be considered.

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

The point here is that it is not a simple process. It is a long, involved process and there has to be an exemplary situation on the part of the inmate for him or her to get through all stages of the process and achieve release.

If the chief justice or judge determines that the application has a reasonable prospect of success, a judge will be assigned to hear the matter with a jury. In determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced, the jury should consider the five criteria that I have outlined. The jury determination to reduce the parole ineligibility period must be unanimous.

Evidently, before, that was not the requirement. I believe it was two-thirds, but now it has to be unanimous on the part of the jury.

The victims of the offender's crime may provide information either orally or in writing, or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate. This is also an excellent provision of the rules.

If the application is dismissed, the jury may, by a two-thirds majority, either set a time not earlier than two years after the determination when the inmate may make another application, or it may decide that the inmate will not be entitled to make any further applications.

We see within the bill that there are some changes to these provisions later.

If the jury determines that the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, a two-thirds majority of that jury may substitute a lesser number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole than the number then applicable. The number of years without eligibility for parole that they can assign can range from 15 to 24 years.

Once permission to apply for early parole has been granted, the inmate must apply to the National Parole Board to obtain the parole. Whether the inmate is released, and when, is decided solely by the board, based on a risk assessment, with the protection of the public as the foremost consideration.

We can see from each of these steps that if there is a red flag popping up at any of these stages, that should end the process. The process should not continue beyond that.

Board members must also be satisfied that the offender will follow specific conditions, which may include restriction of movement, participation in treatment programs, and prohibitions on associating with certain people, such as victims, children, and convicted criminals.

One of the points we have continually made is that progress can only be made if the people in the prisons are actually being rehabilitated. The fact that they are participating in rehabilitation programs is something that we as a society want. We do not want people sitting in the prisons for years and years and refusing to take part in programs. By taking part in programs, the inmate enhances the possibility that at some time, away in the future, there could be some faint hope down the line.

It has been mentioned several times today that Colin Thatcher, a former Conservative member of the legislature in Saskatchewan, had been in jail since 1984. In fact, he wrote a book while he was in prison. He served 22 years or more for the murder of JoAnn Wilson. At the end of the day, I believe the faint hope clause did apply to him only two or three years from the time that his 25 year term would have expired.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and speak on behalf of my party and the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway to this important bill, Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, sub nomine, serious time for the most serious crime act.

Bill S-6 amends provisions in the Criminal Code regarding the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to apply for early parole. This is done through the elimination of the so-called faint hope clause as it is commonly known by which those given a life sentence for murder or high treason could apply for parole after serving 15 years of their sentence.

A similar predecessor bill, Bill C-36, was introduced during the second session of this Parliament but did not become law before that session ended when the current government prorogued Parliament at the end of 2009.

It is important when we discuss profound issues, particularly ones that involve critical issues of crime and punishment and proper approaches to our carceral system, to have a very sound understanding of the structure and facts. I will spend a little time reviewing what the current law is.

Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, known as the faint hope clause, provides offenders serving a sentence for high treason or murder with the possibility of applying for parole after having served 15 years when the sentence that they have been imprisoned for amounts to life without eligibility for parole for more than 15 years.

Offenders convicted of first degree murder receive life imprisonment as a minimum sentence with the earliest parole eligibility date set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed with the judge being able to set parole eligibility at some point between 10 and 25 years. Judges have that discretion in our Canadian courts.

Those serving a life sentence can be released from prison only if granted parole by the National Parole Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of a fixed link, for instance two, five or ten years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release.

If granted parole, those convicted of a life sentence remain subject for the rest of their lives to the conditions of parole under the supervision of a Correctional Service Canada parole officer.

One thing that is important to point out is that in this country, those who are given a life sentence do have a life sentence. That sentence is and will be applied to them for the rest of their natural lives. The question is whether or not and when they will be permitted to serve that sentence in the community as opposed to being incarcerated.

Parole may always be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole or if they commit a new offence. Of course, not all people who have been given a life sentence are granted parole. Some offenders are never released on parole because the risk of their reoffending is too great and that is appropriately so.

During the years following its initial introduction in 1976 the faint hope provision underwent a number of amendments so that now the criteria for the possible release on parole of someone serving a life sentence include the following. The inmate must have served at least 15 years of his or her sentence. An inmate who has been convicted of more than one murder where at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997, which was when certain amendments came into force, may not apply for a review of his or her parole ineligibility period. To seek a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole, the offender must apply to the chief justice of the province or territory in which his or her conviction took place.

The chief justice or superior court judge designated by the chief justice must first determine whether the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application for review will succeed. This assessment is based on the following criteria: the character of the applicant; the applicant's conduct while serving his or her sentence; the nature of the offence for which the offender was convicted; any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of the hearing under this section; and any other matter that the judge considers relevant to the circumstance.

If the application for early parole is dismissed for lack of a reasonable prospect of success, the chief justice or judge may set a time for another application not earlier than two years after the dismissal, or he or she may declare that the inmate will never be entitled to make another application.

On the other hand, if the chief justice or judge determines that the application has a reasonable prospect of success, a judge will be assigned to hear the matter with a jury. In determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced, the jury should consider and does consider the five criteria I just mentioned. The jury determination to reduce the parole ineligibility period must also be unanimous.

The victims of the offender's crime may provide information either orally or in writing, or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate.

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

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

A faint hope clause review is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence, nor is it a parole hearing. A favourable decision by the judge and the jury simply advances the date upon which an offender will be eligible to apply for parole.

This section, of course, has been considered by the sharpest legal minds of our country, the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of this review procedure is to re-examine a judicial decision in light of changes that have occurred in the applicant's situation since the time of sentencing that may justify lessening the parole ineligibility period.

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

The faint hope clause was added to the Criminal Code in 1976 in the hope that it would provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves and therefore afford more protection to prison guards, as well as fundamentally achieve greater justice in our country. The provision is also said to represent Parliament's awareness of how long other countries imprison persons convicted of murder before allowing them to apply for parole. For example, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Scotland and Switzerland keep persons convicted of murder in prison for an average of 15 years before they may be paroled.

The very first judicial review hearing under the faint hope clause was held in 1987. Here are some statistics that the House might find instructive.

As of April 12, 2009, 991 offenders had been deemed eligible to apply for a judicial review. Court decisions have been rendered in 173 cases, and 143 inmates have been declared eligible to apply for earlier parole. Of these, 130 were granted parole, representing just over 13% of those who had been deemed eligible to apply for a review of their parole dates.

I spoke about comparing Canada to other countries, and there are some other instructive facts that would be helpful for parliamentarians as we consider this difficult matter.

In 1999, an international comparison of the average time served in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder showed that the average time served in Canada is 28.4 years. Moreover, that is greater than in all countries surveyed, including the United States, with the exception of offenders in that country who serve life sentences without parole.

Here is the average time spent in custody by offenders convicted of first degree murder: New Zealand, 11 years; Scotland, 11.2 years; Sweden, 12 years; Belgium, 12.7 years; Australia, 14.8 years; United States for life sentence with parole, 18.5 years; and United States for life sentence without parole, 29 years. Once again, Canadian inmates convicted of first degree murder served 28.4 years.

I know the government is fond of saying where Canada sits on the world stage. It uses those facts when it thinks they are helpful. Let us then take a look at this fact: Canada keeps its first degree murderers in prison longer than every country on earth except for the United States.

Those who favour the retention of the faint hope clause have a number of arguments. They argue that judges and juries who consider whether to reduce the parole ineligibility period often take into consideration the circumstances that have led criminals down the wrong path, factors like poverty, fetal alcohol syndrome, low cognition, and other factors. They also recognize that mistakes can be made in court rooms from time to time resulting in innocent people being convicted.

Those who commit murder do deserve to be treated severely. Despite the government's constant attempt to try to simplify any argument other than its own or its attempt to make up straw person arguments that are easy to beat up, let it be said that there is no parliamentarian in this House who does not think that someone convicted of first degree murder ought to be treated severely. Of course they should. Anybody suggesting that any parliamentarian thinks otherwise is simply trying to mislead the Canadian public.

However while acknowledging that, people who favour retaining this section believe that offenders should not necessarily be utterly robbed of all hope, since one of the aims of punishment is rehabilitation. They believe, in other words, that justice must be tempered with mercy.

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

Mr. Speaker, after that speech I think my colleague should be one of the ones to lead the charge. I certainly put the compassionate argument. I will go back to what I said in my speech. One of the benefits of being a member of Parliament is that we have access to resources and people who work within the industry, people who are experts, people who know more than we do. Believe it or not, some of us actually believe there are others out there who know a lot more than we do. Because of the member's personal experience, he is able to bring the matter of FASD into this House and certainly give it the full debate it deserves. That goes back to the idea of the faint hope clause.

It is an incredible way to debate this issue through the measures he mentioned. The convening measure, the first ministers conference, is certainly something that can bring the whole country together, not to be divisive but to lift the bar on how we can address rehabilitation for people who commit the serious crimes and for people who are victims of FASD, and the member talked about IQs.

That being said, the federal government has that power through the Canada health and social transfer. It can become one of the driving agents behind this. There is nothing wrong with that, because by being in the driver's seat on this particular issue, let us face it, we also safeguard the five principles of health care across the country, which is universal to all despite in which territory or province people live.

I commend my colleague for bringing this up. I think that is all part of the debate within this House. Sometimes we do not give these issues the debate they deserve. It becomes a series of sound bites and cute little slogans that we use from time to time to gain ourselves momentum into the next election. Unfortunately, that may be what I would call the negative aspect of a minority Parliament, if indeed we want to use that. However, there are positives of a minority Parliament and the positives include fulsome debate in order to get something passed. Otherwise, if we do not have the numbers, we have to have honest debate.

Am I convinced that we are using this House in a situation like Bill S-6, the faint hope clause, which was formerly Bill C-36, and the idea of rehabilitation, or protecting victims or allowing victims to receive the justice they so desperately deserve? We need within this Parliament to give these people the voice that they deserve. If we surround it with sound bites and politics and divisiveness, which we see normally on the 10 o'clock news, then they become the ones to whom we have given short shrift. That is the unfortunate part of this.

I implore my colleagues, this is the big reason that I want to send this bill to committee, so that we can discuss these issues. Unfortunately, we did not have that chance before, but now we do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Merci.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is because we want to set the record straight.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is quite right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate at second reading of Bill C-58, the latest bill the government has brought forward.

It struck me as peculiar that the bill was just tabled and, all of a sudden, it is before the House for debate without briefing notes from the minister, without a legislative summary, and without consultation or somehow engaging the members to consider the issue before us.

The issue is not really about Internet laws, but about the protection of children. That is what the bill is about. If we put it in that context, we will understand that this specific bill relating to child protection is a very small piece of the discussion. That concerns me, and I think that concern is slowly emerging.

We are at second reading of this bill. The reason I wanted to rise is that I would like to encourage members to put on the table as many recommendations as possible for committee to consider, not just this very narrow bill as it stands. We need to examine how this bill could have been part of a comprehensive approach to child protection beyond simply dealing with those who happen to detect child pornography on a computer, whether they be individuals or organizations.

When I saw the penalties for a first offence, in this particular case a $1,000, I thought, “My goodness, child pornography probably generates millions of dollars, so the $1,000 just does not seem to be in the ball park”. My premise is that if one is not part of the solution, then one must be part of the problem.

The previous speaker from the Bloc raised for members' consideration the issue of prevention and, of course, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection raised the need for us to do much more.

Whenever a criminal justice bill is before the House, not being a lawyer, I can enjoy the luxury of asking, what do I know about and how do I feel about this bill and what does it do to address the problem before us? I look at the issue that we are talking about and why we are doing what we propose and the elements of penalties and incarceration that are included. I also ask what are the issues with regard to rehabilitation, if possible, and what are the issues with regard to prevention?

I say this because when we talk about criminal justice issues, we have to deal with them before and after we have the problem. We know from all of the work that has ever been done on health and justice issues and from wherever we have social problems that understanding and admitting that we have a problem is the first step. The next step has to be, how do we prevent some of these problems?

I should say at the outset that the bill, in its narrow way, is worthwhile sending to committee and, I suspect, supporting to become law. But it is so narrow in its approach, it is tinkering. How many times have we asked why does the government not come forward with comprehensive legislation that actually addresses the issue? The issue is child protection, and we have problems there.

When I looked at the speech by the Minister of State for the Status of Women, who gave the government's position, I am pretty sure that somebody wrote it for her. Nonetheless, at least two or three times it mentions that Canada has “one of the most comprehensive frameworks in the world to combat child pornography” and that “we can and must do better”. A little later in the speech, the minister continued that “Canadian criminal laws against child pornography are among the most comprehensive in the world and apply to representations involving real and imaginary children”. That point is later repeated.

We can say that is the truth, but if Canadians look at the statistics, they should know that 39% of those accessing child pornography are viewing images of children between the ages of three and five years of age, and 19% are viewing images of infants under three years old. The public does not really know that, but we should consider that we are talking about a significant problem of children five years of age or younger. The vast majority of this problem is among children five years of age or younger.

Why does the government not ask itself how is it that a child five years or under could actually be a victim of child pornography? Can we imagine our own children being involved in this? If so, why? If not, why not? From our knowledge and experience, we know collectively the conditions that are fertile for bad or wrong things happening. We understand those things, but we are tinkering here. We have a serious problem. The minister of state admits it, but also says that we have the most comprehensive framework to deal with it. Well, we do not.

When we have a problem as pervasive as this, we can look back at some of the history of it and recall that we had a joint Commons-Senate report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”. It dealt with issues of family breakdown and recommended, for example, that if there were a custody dispute in an acrimonious divorce, there must be a parenting plan in place before a divorce can be granted by the courts. That was a joint Commons-Senate report done years ago.

It never happened. I have spent a fair bit of time working on children's issues. I wrote a book called The Child Poverty Solution dealing with the causes of child poverty. Child poverty is one of those things that tugs on the heart. Who could be against dealing with child poverty? However, it is family poverty, because every child in a poor family is poor. Why are families poor? On a scale divided into quartiles, no matter how much anybody makes, somebody will be in the fourth quartile.

Under the definition we have right now, if one is in the fourth quartile, one is basically counted as being among Canada's poor. Poverty needs a definition, but I am not going to get into that because the bill is not about child poverty other than the fact that such poverty is a contributing factor to a child being accessible and vulnerable to being a victim of child pornography.

I wrote another book called Divorce—The Bold Facts, which also dealt with family breakdown and the impact on children. The research that I did was just amazing. The implications for children of family breakdown are enormous. Where those children end up and the quality of care they get and the circumstances they have to live in, tell me that these are fertile areas for bad things to happen.

I wrote another book called Strong Families... Make a Strong Country dealing with the same thing. It showed statistically that the intact family, a child with a biological mother and biological father, had the least incidence of bad outcomes for children. The statistics show this out; it is not a subjective opinion. It is subjectively determinative, and this has been shown so many times. Another related book I wrote was called TRAGIC TOLERANCE... of Domestic Violence.

I am wearing my white ribbon because we are talking right now about an area that is extremely important. Domestic violence and violence against women are still rampant in our country. I spent five years on the board of my shelter for battered women, called Interim Place, and helped them get a second shelter built. However, I am hoping that these shelters will go out of business. In a perfect world, we would not need shelters for women and children who are abused.

We just considered Bill C-36, the bill dealing with the faint hope clause. Here, four out of the six women who applied for the faint hope clause were abused women who had killed their husbands and been convicted of first degree murder. All of them had children. Four of the six who applied actually were granted early parole, and while they still have a life sentence, they were granted early parole because of the compassionate understanding that bad things happen. In a couple of those cases, the husband was having an affair on the side and there were other consequential things, but there was a first degree murder. It is terrible that murder occurs, but Bill C-36 eliminates the opportunity for parole after 15 years. It says that if someone commits first degree murder, that person is going to serve 25 years before he or she gets the first opportunity for parole. Can we imagine what that does to a family with children? I do not understand why repeal of the faint hope clause is going to happen. I do not support the elimination of faint hope, but that is not before us right now.

I have said so many times in this place that public education—

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted in committee on Wednesday, November 25, 2009, the committee has considered the matter concerning a request for documents pertaining to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, and has agreed to report the matter to the House.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the amendment lost.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

Call in the members.

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

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

Very briefly, I'll simply give my thoughts on whether or not the motion that Mr. Comartin has raised here relates to parliamentary privilege.

In my mind, it definitely does. Members of this committee, while conducting a study on a bill, in this case Bill C-36, properly asked questions of one of the witnesses. The witness said he had the information to be able to answer the questions but not in his physical possession at that time. He was then asked if he could provide that information to the members of the committee through the chair before November 16, as we were going to clause-by-clause at that time. The witness clearly stated that, yes, he could do so.

On November 16 we presented ourselves for clause-by-clause, and some members asked where the information was from that witness. They were informed that the information had been sent to their offices, that it had been distributed to all members.

In answer to Mr. Moore's statement, those members, having being informed they were in possession of the information they felt they needed to properly conduct their duties and responsibilities as parliamentarians and proceed to clause-by-clause as it would inform their decisions on the clause-by-clause, did not make an issue of it because they assumed the fault was theirs or that of their staff.

It was only once we had completed clause-by-clause that we were informed, or at least some members were informed, that this information had been available but had been...I hesitate to use the word “diverted”, but had landed in the office of the minister and had not been distributed to members of this committee. Therefore, these members, Mr. Comartin in particular and Mr. Lemay, proceeded to clause-by-clause based on erroneous information.

I believe it does relate to parliamentary privilege. We have a duty and a responsibility to do what we feel is necessary to prepare ourselves when we're conducting a study of legislation in that particular case. Some members felt they needed certain information prior to feeling comfortable to moving to clause-by-clause. They were informed they would get the information. In fact, they did not get it but were misinformed that they had gotten the information.

My view is that it does relate to parliamentary privilege and to a potential breach of parliamentary privilege.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are one or two members who weren't here at the last meeting, so I'll just do this quick overview.

I and Mr. Lemay had asked for certain data from Mr. Don Head, Head of Corrections Canada. He in fact had provided that. I now have information, which I didn't have then, that on November 13, having committed to do that for us in advance of the clause-by-clause meeting on Bill C-36 on November 16, unfortunately he sent the letter, although it was addressed to the clerk of this committee, to the minister's office of Public Safety and National Security. That letter then sat there until it was handed to me yesterday; I received a copy of it from the government House leader yesterday. I believe it has been now delivered today to all members of the committee. This is the advice from my office this afternoon, anyway.

So we have finally received it. Of course, we received it after clause-by-clause and after the debate took place in the House on Monday and Tuesday of this week. There was absolutely no reason given, either by Mr. Head or the minister's office, and the minister himself, as to why the material wasn't provided to us as had been promised and undertaken by Mr. Head in the meeting when he attended on November 4.

There is, I think, ample precedent, Mr. Chair, for the fact that when that type of undertaking is given it is to be complied with by a public servant. If Mr. Head felt that he was under some compunction or compulsion to give that to the minister before it got to this committee, I'm not sure where he would have come by that. That's not the proper process. But at the very least, if he passed it on to the minister's office, the minister's office should have been responsible for getting it to this committee in a timely fashion, as had been committed to this committee.

If they couldn't have done that, Mr. Chair, they should have advised the committee and the committee could have taken appropriate steps to ensure that the material was before us before we conducted clause-by-clause by adjourning clause-by-clause to a later date until the information was received.

The information clearly was pertinent. I say that from having only had some time to go over it. It was clearly pertinent to the issues that were contained in Bill C-36 and it would have been very much pointed to, at least by me and Mr. Lemay, as to why Bill C-36 should not have proceeded as prepared.

Mr. Chair, again, for maybe a couple of the members who weren't here on Monday, what is required at this point, if I can go ahead with my point of privilege in the House, is for this committee to send a report to the House to advise the Speaker, who has authority to determine whether in fact there has been a breach of my parliamentary privilege and that of Mr. Lemay's, and I think of the committee as a whole. In order for the Speaker to be able to determine that, the Speaker has to have a report from us as to what in fact occurred. And, again, I had given the committee a summary of the report that I thought was appropriate. I read that into the record on Monday afternoon at our last meeting.

In addition, there is some urgency on this, as I again made the point on Monday. If you are going to pursue a point of privilege, you have to pursue it at the first opportunity. For me, that opportunity arose on Monday morning when I found out that in fact this material that I and Mr. Lemay had requested and committed to receive had never been delivered to us, as I had been informed previously, and as I understand some other members of the committee had. We in fact never got it. We were advised that it had been given to us. We thought we had simply misplaced it or we had simply not seen it.

I became aware that it had never been received and that the minister's office had somehow intervened in this process. My time in bringing my point of privilege started running on Monday. I think the general rule is that you should get this before the House within a day or two. This is now the second day, I suppose you could argue maybe even the third day. The Speaker has made it clear in the past, not only this Speaker but others, that you must move on this quickly.

So it's absolutely essential that we deal with this today, that we issue the report, get it back to the House either tomorrow or Friday, so I can bring my point of privilege before the House.

Bill C-36

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

Mr. Speaker, I present this motion on behalf of my colleague the chief government whip. There have been discussions between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, if the recorded division on the amendment to the third reading motion of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code is negatived, the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the third reading motion of Bill C-36 without further debate or amendment.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise here to speak to a bill for the second time today, but first of all, I must say I will probably be less critical of Bill C-31 than I was, and I will continue to be, of Bill C-36, if that bill ever comes back to the House. That being said, this is an interesting bill, and the Bloc Québécois will support it so it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a more thorough study.

I hear some Conservative Party members applauding. I invite them to save their applause for five or ten minutes from now. I am not sure if they will still want to applaud, but for now, I cannot help but notice their applause, and I think it is interesting.

I do not know why, but the Conservatives tend to insert what we call a poison pill into an interesting bill. We were reading the bill, which has about 30 pages and 40 clauses, and everything was going well until we got to clause 39, which would amend the Identification of Criminals Act. I will come back to this. Our criminal law includes a very important principle, which the Supreme Court has reiterated on a number of occasions, and that is the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury or a judge who knows the law, on the basis of evidence introduced before his peers. The Supreme Court has said this time and time again. I would remind the members that we do not believe that subsection 2(1) of the Identification of Criminals Act can be amended, because that would go against the presumption of innocence.

I will take this argument further. The main downside to this bill is one small paragraph on the last page of the bill that seeks to amend paragraph 2(1)(a) and that reads as follows:

(a) any person who is in lawful custody after being arrested for...

That means that this paragraph would apply to everyone who is arrested for any reason. People could be fingerprinted and photographed from now on. It is clear that, if the government maintains its position and insists on amending this section, we will fight to the finish to vote against this bill and against this clause, and it is clear that we will try to have this clause removed from the bill in committee. We hope to do so with the support of the Liberals and my NDP colleague.

Why remove this clause? Because it would open the door to all sorts of abuses. My colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert can say what he likes, but you have to know the territory, as we say, you have to have argued cases and know criminal records to know that the police have a tendency to go overboard. Often, they are willing to keep a record on anyone for anything. Obviously, this is not always true, and it is not true of all police officers. But there are safeguards in place, and one of them says that a person cannot be fingerprinted until he or she is charged with or convicted of an offence. That means that at present, an individual who is convicted or who is charged—because the person has to be charged—can be photographed and fingerprinted.

In general, this is how it works. A person receives a summons requiring them to appear in court. They must plead guilty or not guilty and then they may be fingerprinted and photographed.

This process must not change and we will do everything in our power to ensure that it does not change because it is the fundamental right of an individual to be presumed innocent until found guilty. This presumption of innocence is extremely important in our criminal law.

It is unfortunate because it overshadows good intentions. I come from an area 600 km north of Ottawa that is regularly visited by the itinerant court. I also argued before this court when I was a lawyer. The itinerant court travels to Inuit and Cree villages on the shores of James Bay, Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay as well as in regions such as ours.

I will return to the main point of Bill C-31: telewarrants. We believe that the process must be modernized. Police forces are quite right to ask that telewarrants be easier to obtain and that they be made available more quickly.

For the benefit of our audience, telewarrants are search warrants or other types of warrants. The first example that comes to mind is this. Someone is stopped after a motor vehicle accident. The police approach the vehicle and smell alcohol. The person is in his car and unable to give his consent because he is unconscious or too drunk. In any event, he must be taken to hospital. The police accompany him to hospital and obtain a telewarrant over the phone. A justice of the peace, located in an office somewhere in Quebec, will authorize the taking of a blood sample from the individual to determine his blood alcohol level. We agree with the legislator that this telewarrant process should be retained and made more accessible.

The police are right. At present, in 2009, if they suspect that a criminal act has been or is about to be committed, and if they must quickly obtain a search warrant, they have to go before a judge, have him sign a document and then proceed with the search.

We think that the bill is a good idea, because it would modernize the Criminal Code. Even though I am a criminal lawyer, I think that we need to make it easier for police officers to do their jobs and gather evidence. One way of doing this is through telewarrants.

We feel that improving access to telewarrants is a good thing. Police officers must have the possibility of obtaining telewarrants, whether or not they are written or used.

This bill deals with many other things, such as fleeing to another province, and the amendment in response to the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Six Accused Persons, which amends section 184 of the Criminal Code. There were a number of amendments to be made to the Criminal Code.

There are many details. This bill is long and very technical, but it is interesting. However, there are two main points I want to talk about. The first is representation by an agent, or non-lawyer.

I have a hard time accepting that an agent could represent a client in court, when the client is being charged with a summary offence. The Bloc Québécois has a hard time agreeing with this proposal for a number of reasons.

Representation by a lawyer is extremely important, especially in criminal law. When it comes to appearing, we could probably make some concessions. But I have some serious problems with having an agent question and cross-examine witnesses for and on behalf of the defendant.

I have the same concerns as the Quebec bar, which has provided us with information on this subject, saying:

The Barreau du Québec is concerned that this proposal, as written, causes confusion about the meaning of “agent”, and could lead to lawsuits against individuals for illegally practising the profession.

I am also very worried about this proposal. In Quebec, lots of people have acted as lawyers and have represented individuals, such as claimants before Quebec's occupational health and safety commission. The same thing has happened at the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. People with no legal skills whatsoever have represented others before the board of referees because, they said, they were friends of the claimants. If that same system were to apply to the Criminal Code, we would start having serious problems.

I am very surprised that the government would propose such a thing at the provinces' request. I can confirm that the Quebec bar does not support this proposal. I would be very surprised to hear that the Government of Quebec requested this kind of third-party representation. I believe that the committee will have to pay special attention to the issue of representation by lawyers when it comes time to study this bill.

The other point I want to raise has to do with the amendment to section 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act. I want to discuss this because I think it is important not to create this option. Above all, we must not give the police unrestricted power to take a person's fingerprints and photograph, because there is no telling where that information might end up. Such records, known in our jargon as anthropometric records, could make their way to the Canadian border, to customs, or elsewhere.

If that happened, an individual who has never been charged with anything might be prevented from leaving Canada. The police might go so far as to arrest people for dangerous driving or a highway safety code violation, and tell them to go to the police station for fingerprinting and photographing. The police might even have photographic and fingerprinting equipment with them at the scene of the arrest. I think this goes very, very far. We have to create a process for destroying the fingerprints and photos of people who are not charged with anything and will never be charged, people against whom no complaint or charge will be filed.

At present, not only do we have an individual's fingerprints and photograph—the anthropometric record also included that information—but we know that genetic records can be kept on people who have given a drop of blood, saliva or a single hair for the purposes of DNA identification. We must not forget that.

However, section 10 of the DNA Identification Act contains a provision for the destruction of genetic material.

We think this clause needs to be amended to include the destruction of photos and anthropometric records if no charges are laid within a given timeframe.

One needs to have practised criminal law to understand that it is very rare for clients to come back to us when no charges are laid to ask that their fingerprints and photos be destroyed, even when they have been lawfully taken.

When someone is acquitted of the charges laid against him, his fingerprints and photos should be destroyed automatically, but that is not the case at this time. That is not what happens. Needless to say, this certainly is not more likely to happen if we allow the Identification of Criminals Act to be amended.

We believe that the title of the legislation says it all. It is called the Identification of Criminals Act. So why should someone who has not yet been declared a criminal be forced to submit his photos and fingerprints? In our opinion, this makes no sense, and we find this extremely prejudicial for someone who is arrested.

We think this bill is important. It is an interesting bill and I will close by talking about fighting. I listened to my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and also to my colleague from Windsor. They asked a very important question. There is prizefighting and now throughout the United States there is this type of extreme fighting where violence is involved, of course, but also bets and so forth.

However, we have to be careful because there is very well organized fighting. We know about boxing, but in terms of the Olympic movement, judo and karate have now been introduced. These are extremely interesting sports that are gaining in popularity in Canada.

Judo and karate events are organized under the supervision of national and international agencies. International agencies including the International Olympic Committee, the International Judo Federation, and the World Karate Federation have asked us to ensure that the Criminal Code is amended. I will give an example related to this type of fighting. Canada cannot host the world cup of karate or judo because under the Criminal Code, such fighting is illegal.

We think it is important that this be amended in the Criminal Code. That is what a number of provinces and Quebec are asking for. Judo-Québec, the Fédération québécoise de karaté, the National Karate Association of Canada and Judo Canada, following representations by the International Olympic Committee, which would like to hold major competitions in these two sports, cannot take part.

I see that my time is almost up, but I will close by saying that this is an interesting bill that we will have to address in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There are two points, and I have mentioned them, but I think it is important that we respond to the requests and modernize the Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged Misleading Statement

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the issue to the House.

I just received a transcript of the actual clause by clause proceedings of the justice committee during question period, prior to him raising his question of privilege. I had an opportunity to speak with my colleagues, both within my party and within one of the other opposition parties, and they confirmed that I had abstained throughout clause by clause, except for the final vote where they confirm, as had been alleged by a member of the Conservative Party during questions and comments to me during the debate on Bill C-36, that I had in fact said nay.

Therefore, in that case, as I also stated, and the member did not mention it, if in fact I had voted and it was accurate that I had voted, that I would apologize. I do apologize. I was wrong in my recounting of the information. The member for Burlington was correct. My memory was faulty and I apologize to this House.

The records of the Standing Committee on Justice on clause by clause are correct. I abstained throughout all of the votes except for the final vote, which stated, “Should this bill, as amended, carry?”. It was a recorded vote and I did say nay, so there are not two versions before the House. There is one version, the version that was originally given by the member of the Conservative Party for Burlington.

I apologize for having doubted his word and I beg the indulgence of the House. I apologize to everyone. I have now corrected the transcript and the official record of the House of Commons that there is only one version.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened but I feel the need to rise today on a question of privilege. I believe that on Monday, November 23, a member opposite deliberately misled the House. I do not make that suggestion without pause and reflection. It is a serious accusation.

On page 119 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

In the allegation that I am making, this occurred during the debate on Bill C-36, an act to abolish the so-called faint hope clause. The hon. member for Burlington quite rightly asked the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine why, if she supposedly supports the bill to abolish the faint hope clause, she voted against the bill at committee.

During the debate on this point, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine said:

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.

I am a member of that committee and I was at that meeting. I and all other members at the committee know very well that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, when asked in a recorded vote, “Shall the bill carry, as amended?”, she responded, “No”. The House need not take my word for it. If members check the audio recording of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 16, at the 34 minute and 18 second mark, they can clearly hear the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine say “no” when her name was called by the clerk in order to vote on the following question, “Shall the bill carry, as amended?”.

This is why the minutes of that meeting also have the member listed in the column under nays.

I believe this is a clear case of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to your ruling of February 1, 2002. In that case, the then hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the then minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House, as the minister left two differing versions of events on the record. In your ruling, you referred page 67 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties....

Mr. Speaker, you later went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air.

You then invited the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.

What we have here is a tantamount situation. We have two versions before Parliament involving proceedings on Bill C-36. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is recorded as voting against Bill C-36 at committee and she has stated in the House that she “did not vote on any of the questions”.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, with due respect, as you did on February 1, 2002, that you find there is a prima facie question of privilege and allow me to move the appropriate motion. I await your direction.

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members can see the picture I am trying to paint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to conclude, we cannot—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

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.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker.

In 1999 the Criminal Code was amended again in response to the concerns set out in the report of the Common's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Victims' Rights--A Voice, Not a Veto”.

As a result, under Section 745.01 a judge sentencing someone convicted of first- or second-degree murder or high treason must declare, for the record and for the benefit of the surviving victims or their representatives, the existence and nature of the faint hope regime.

Given the controversial history of the faint hope regime, the rationale for Bill C-36 is very simple. Allowing convicted murderers a chance, even a faint chance, of getting early parole flies in the face of truth in sentencing. With its alternate title, this bill indicates that truth in sentencing means that those who commit the most serious of crimes must do the most serious time.

This is what the proposals in Bill C-36 aim to do. They aim to restore truth in sentencing for murderers and to protect society by keeping potentially violent offenders in prison for longer periods of time.

I am pleased to note that Bill C-36 would fulfill a long-standing commitment of the government to repeal the faint hope regime for future offenders and to tighten up the current application procedure in the interests of families and loved ones of murder victims.

Bill C-36 would bar all those who commit murder or high treason after the legislation comes into effect from applying for faint hope. In effect, the faint hope regime will be repealed for all those who commit murder in the future.

Bill C-36 would also toughen further application processes for those already sentenced as lifers with the right to apply for faint hope by setting a higher judicial screening test. From now on, a judge will have to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will unanimously agree to reduce an applicant's parole ineligibility period. Moving from a reasonable prospect to a substantial likelihood will likely screen out the most undeserving applications.

There are also longer waiting periods for reapplication in the event of an unsuccessful initial faint hope application, a minimum five years instead of the present two.

Most important, Bill C-36 would impose a new three-month time limit for an offender to apply or reapply under the faint hope regime. The three-month time limit would apply in the following situations.

First, it would apply to those offenders who have served at least 15 years of their sentence and have not yet applied. There are many offenders in prison now who have served 15, 16, 17 or more years but who have not yet applied. These offenders will have to make an application within three months of the coming into force of the legislation or wait an additional five years.

Second, it would apply to those offenders who are now serving a sentence but who have not yet reached the 15-year mark. For example, they may have served four years, eight years, or ten years when this bill passes. At exactly the 15-year point in their sentence, all of these murderers will have three months within which to bring an application.

There is also a new five-year waiting period during which an offender may not apply at all if he or she does not apply to a judge within the three-month time limit.

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

In closing, Bill C-36 would eliminate the faint hope regime for all future murderers and would ensure that murderers now in prison would have a much tougher time accessing the regime.

None of these substantive aspects of Bill C-36 have been amended in any way by the standing committee. As I mentioned earlier, there are a few highly technical amendments that have no impact whatsoever on the substantive provisions that I have briefly described.

The reforms to the faint hope regime proposed in Bill C-36 will accomplish two worthwhile goals: first, they will allow us to meet the concerns of Canadians that murderers do the time they have been given and stay longer in prisons than they do now; and second and equally important, they will help ensure that families of loved ones and murder victims are not forced to rehear the details of these crimes every two years as they are sometimes required to do under the current regime.

I support this bill and call on all members of the House to do so as well.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36 now that it has been reported back to this House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-36, the serious time for the most serious crime bill, will amend the Criminal Code to repeal the so-called faint hope regime for all those who commit murder after the legislation comes into force. Importantly, it will also toughen the procedural requirements to make a faint hope application for the approximately 1,000 already convicted murderers now serving life sentences in Canada's prisons who presently have the right to apply for faint hope, or who will have the right to do so after serving 15 years.

I am pleased to note that after hearing from several witnesses, the standing committee reported Bill C-36 back to the House with but a few technical amendments that will better harmonize the English and French versions of the bill.

Allow me to recap the nature of the substantive Criminal Code amendments contained in Bill C-36 for the benefit of hon. members.

As most hon. members are aware, high treason and first and second degree murder are all punishable by life imprisonment with the right to apply for parole after a stipulated period of time. Section 745 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the earliest possible parole eligibility date for those convicted of first degree murder and high treason is 25 years. It is also 25 years for second degree murder, where the murderer has been convicted of a prior first or second degree murder, or of an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Otherwise, the parole ineligibility period for second degree murder is automatically 10 years and can be up to 25 years as determined by the judge under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

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

The current faint hope process is set out in section 745.6 and related provisions, and has three stages.

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

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

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

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

Ultimately, the National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants. In short, nearly half of the 265 faint hope applicants were ultimately granted parole before the expiry of the parole ineligibility period imposed on them at the time of sentencing.

The existence of the faint hope regime and high success rate of applicants has led to a great deal of public concern, particularly among victims' advocate groups. This has in turn led to a series of amendments to restrict access to the faint hope regime and to make better arrangements for the needs of the families and the loved ones of murder victims.

Thus, government amendments to the faint hope regime in 1995, which came into force in January 1997, toughen the application procedure, first, by entirely barring multiple murderers from applying if one of the murders occurred after the coming into force date of the legislation; second, by requiring a judge to conduct the review already mentioned whereby the applicant must show a reasonable prospect of success before the applicant may go to the jury; and third, by setting the high standard of jury unanimity that I have already mentioned before the applicant's parole and eligibility period may be reduced.

I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Oakville. I neglected to do that at the beginning of my speech.

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-57, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.

If we were to complete that, I would intend to call Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I would point out to my colleagues that this bill has already received more than 30 hours of debate in the House and yet the NDP and the Bloc continue to delay the proceedings and hold up this agreement that would create new business opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast.

As I indicated this morning, tomorrow will be an allotted day.

Next week we will once again focus on our justice agenda beginning with the report and third reading stage of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code followed by Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. Then we will have Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act; Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker act; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions); Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act and finally, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On the issue of a NAFO debate, I would remind the hon. House leader for the Liberal Party that is what opposition days are for.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Thursday, June 18, the committee has considered Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, and agreed on Monday, November 16, to report it with amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll reconvene the meeting.

We move now to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

Also, we want to welcome back John Giokas and Catherine Kane, who are with the criminal policy section of the Department of Justice. Welcome back to both of you.

You have before you four government amendments. I trust you've had an opportunity to review them. It's my understanding that all of the amendments were circulated to you by e-mail.

Pursuant to standing order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

(On clause 2)

I understand the government has an amendment on clause 2. Mr. Moore, would you like to present the amendment and explain it.

[Rick Sauvé, As an Individual]

Thank you. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak today, but without the faint hope clause, I wouldn't have been able to be here.

In preparation for coming today, I was talking to my grandson this morning, and he asked me what Bill C-36 was about. He asked me to explain it to him in terms he might understand. He's 12 years old and very bright. I've never hidden from him the fact that I'm serving a life sentence. I'm still serving a life sentence, but I'm now in the community.

I explained to him that one of the pillars of our justice system is the jury process. I explained that when I was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to parole ineligibility for 25 years, after 15 years I could make application to go back to my community--the community where I was arrested and where the crime had taken place. It was up to the people from my community, 12 men and women, after hearing about the nature of the offence, how I served my time in prison, and my character, to make a decision on whether I would be considered to apply for parole and come back to their community. After a week of trial about my character and what I had been doing in prison for the past almost 16 years—and it wasn't at the 15-year mark that I got to go to court—after all that period of time in prison and after hearing from witnesses who testified about my character, would they feel comfortable with my applying for parole to come back to that community? They voted yes.

When I explained that to him, I said that one of the things we often hear is that the community has an interest about who's going to be coming back into their community. They want to feel a part of that process. They want to know who it is who's going to be their neighbour. When I explained that to him, he said that it made sense to him and asked, “Why would we change that?”

I could talk about looking at it from a correctional perspective, that it gives hope, and it's a good correctional tool for Corrections to assist people in the rehabilitation process. But I think fundamentally, for me, it was about talking to people from my community and letting them know that I am somebody they can be aware of and that they were a part of that decision-making process. I feel it would be unfortunate if that was removed from them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 47 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, November 16, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We are finalizing our review of Bill C-36. We have one final witness, Mr. Rick Sauvé. After the witness has testified and we've asked some questions, we'll then move to clause-by-clause.

Welcome, Mr. Sauvé. You've been told what the process is. You have 10 minutes to make an opening presentation and then we'll open the floor to the members for questions.

Please proceed.

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

We then move to the witness Mr. Comartin suggested and this committee voted to hear from. If there's time, then we move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36. If not, it becomes the first order of business on Wednesday, the 18th.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We also have the minister coming on the 16th on Bill C-52, and my guess is it's going to take some time. We have at least four, if not five, amendments, government amendments on Bill C-36. So for me to add him, I'm going to need specific direction from the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're out of time. That's five minutes. Monsieur Lemay, you've gone over five minutes.

Before we adjourn, I need to have some direction from the committee. Mr. Comartin has come up with a request for one more witness on Bill C-36, whom he wants to have come--

[Prof. Allan Manson, Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I regret to say that I am not bilingual. I will therefore have to present my ideas and give my answers in English only.

I am here because I'm very concerned about this bill. It will place our sentencing regime, aside from those of countries that still execute people, among the harshest in the world and certainly in the western world. When I look at the minutes of the testimony, which I've read, particularly the testimony of the minister and those supporting the bill, I see no basis and no evidence for these amendments.

I see constant remarks saying, “This is what Canadians want.” I also see remarks about victims. I'm very respectful and sympathetic to victims, and I'll address that in a second, but I dispute the statement that this is what Canadians want. Just because you repeat something over and over doesn't make it true.

It's my view that if we look at the history of criminal law in Canada, the history of murder sentencing and what this Parliament did in 1975-76, what it did in 1997, and what this committee did in 1975-76, I would say Canadians respect the vitality of the human spirit. This legislation does not. This legislation wants to turn penitentiaries into ashcans of human wreckage.

I have studied this 15-year review process. I've written about it. I've been counsel in two cases and advised a number of lawyers, so I can talk to you if you have questions about how these processes work.

You've heard a lot of data. I'm not going to go through much of that again. I did prepare a submission. I had only a few days' notice about this hearing; I hope it's been translated. I'm not sure if it has, but you will have it.

The key is this. This process was created in this committee on a motion by a member named Stuart Leggatt in the spring of 1976. The original proposal for the 15-year review arose like this: the Solicitor General, who was Warren Allmand at the time, had his people do studies of Canada's experience as well as the international experience with the release of murderers. The data suggested around 10 to 15 years as the effective minimum ineligibility period.

Of course, if capital punishment was abolished, there would be a mandatory life imprisonment sentence. We're only talking about parole eligibility. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs had taken the position that they supported retention, but if capital punishment was going to be abolished, they felt the minimum should be 25 years. It was in Warren Allmand's office that they came up with the idea of adopting 25 years while creating a window after 15 years. They took the view that the decision should be made by three judges.

It was in this committee that Stuart Leggatt said, “I was a practising lawyer; I trust juries.” This committee amended the bill to give the decision-making role to juries. These are Canadians, and if you look at the statistics from every province, while sometimes you see a number saying that 83% succeed, that's completely disingenuous and misleading, because in fact fewer than 19% of eligible prisoners apply. There is a process of self-selection.

I haven't done it for the past few years, and I regret that, but I used to travel to lifers' groups in the various penitentiaries around Kingston to explain this provision to prisoners. Afterward I would always talk to people about their individual cases. There is a process of self-selection. There are people who want their cases to remain quiet. They don't want to see them on the front pages of newspapers. There are people who have seen the rigours of these applications; there are people who are worried that an unsuccessful application may prejudice a future parole hearing. There are also people who just know they've not made much progress, and they're bad cases. That's why you see fewer than 19% applying.

At the end of the day, my calculations say 15.2% of eligible prisoners have received some relief. When I say “some” relief, I mean they're not made immediately eligible. A few are, but I've seen cases of people being made eligible when they served 17, 18, 19 years. The jury determines what the reduction will be.

In 1997 the provisions were amended to require a unanimous jury for reduction, but the actual reduction is left to eight out of the 12. It can be 19 or 20 years. They can set the time to whatever they want.

My point is this: is there a basis for this very harsh move? Ms. Jennings isn't here, but when I read the proceedings of the meeting on October 19, I noticed that she engaged in a debate with the minister about constitutionality. However, they were only talking about retroactivity, and on that point of debate the minister was right. He didn't cite it, but the case is R. v. Gamble. People in Canada are entitled to be sentenced, which includes having their parole eligibility determined, by the law as it stands at the time of the offence. But that's not the issue. The issue is the constitutionality of a murder regime set at a minimum of 25 years.

You'll see on page 3 of my submission that in 1990, when our Supreme Court constitutionalized the 25-year parole ineligibility in the Luxton case, it did so taking into account as part of its decision-making matrix the 15-year window and that possibility. If you remove that, the whole question of constitutionality is back on the table. As well, in that case there was no evidence about the deleterious effects of long-term confinement, either in general or on particular people or on groups of people. Next time there will be evidence.

So this is a bill that is constitutionally vulnerable, yet the minister comes here and tells you, “No, no, no”. I don't know that he even considered this issue. You certainly can't see it from the minutes.

Let me say a word about victims.

I accept that some of the families that have survived murder would support this legislation. It certainly wasn't the case when I was a practising lawyer, but now victims do participate, if they choose, in the criminal process. They can participate at every level of the 15-year process if they choose. We've recognized that providing these participatory opportunities to victims is an important and valuable aspect of the criminal justice system. One must respect and have sympathy for the tragic losses and grief that victims have suffered.

Yet we all experience grief in different ways, don't we? There will be myriad responses. While one needs to listen to the voice of victims, sound penal policy must be based on a set of values grounded in an experienced and reasoned judgment. It was over 900 years ago that we took penal policy out of the hands of victims. In this country it's now in the hands of parliamentarians. We expect them to have a full debate, ask hard questions, and produce rational, fair penal policy based on evidence, not emotion.

I have addressed in my submission what I call the procedural aspects of Bill C-36: the 90-day window, the five-year delay. Those would relate to those people currently in jail who have the opportunity of the 15-year review. Again, there's no evidence as to why these are necessary; it's pure harshness for harshness' sake.

The 90-day window is completely unrealistic as well. There will be mountains of files that lawyers need to go through. Plus, I don't know if anyone's ever told you this, but when prisoners are eligible for 15-year review, the juries are picked in the place where the offence was committed. Not many prisoners....

I waited. I would appreciate it if you wait as well. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I have the agenda in front of me and I would like the Committee to follow that agenda—in other words, that we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-232, and then hear from the witnesses that are here representing the Correctional Service of Canada. If there is any time remaining, we can begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36. Further to my request, if we don't have enough time, we will be back here on November 16, and we can proceed based on the established order. We should not be trying to rush through things in the next few days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There is one proviso. I think you suggested that clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 would start on November 4 if there was time. The actual amendment that you suggested says it will start on November 4, but if it's not completed it continues on November 16, when it will be completed. Am I correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's certainly a scenario.

I just want to raise this with members. Tentatively I had scheduled us to deal with clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 right after the witnesses and then move to Bill C-232.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, I understand.

If the motion before us fails, we just continue work on Bill C-36, whatever that may entail.

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

No, wait, we will not stay here to fight about it all afternoon. I agree with you. We tried to reach the witnesses. Some of them are unable to come, and that is par for the course.

However, I don't want to be stuck in the situation where we would have to start on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. and finish Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. I don't want that. We can do it at a later date. On the 16th we will have clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36. I would like us to take the time to hear from our witnesses, study Bill C-232 as required, and at the following meeting, meaning on the 16th, do clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36.

What is the national emergency, where's the fire?

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

I do not agree. I cannot agree with that, because that means that we could be sleeping here on Wednesday evening.

What do you want to do? We will have to vote, because there are votes on Wednesday in the House of Commons.

I had understood that, on the day that we start clause-by-clause consideration, we won't stop until we finish. We could do some work on this. If you are telling us that we will start on Wednesday and we won't stop, this means that we will not be going to vote, because there are votes on Wednesday.

Then, I do not agree with the motion that Bill C-36 is much too important for us to rush through it. If there are any witnesses left, I don't want to rush anyone. I don't think there are many witnesses left, and we will take the time needed to ensure clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36, even if another meeting is needed.

How many witnesses are left, Mr. Chair, is it two or three?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, correct, that's what I would like to see from the motion. It says “that the meeting not adjourn until clause by clause consideration is complete”. After hearing witnesses on Bill C-36, we would then start and finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 by the end of the meeting on Wednesday.

If I hear what the chair is saying with regard to our schedule, it seems quite doable to me to finish Bill C-232 clause-by-clause, hear witnesses on Bill C-36, and then do clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 on Wednesday.

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

I 'd like to make sure I understand correctly. Perhaps the translation of the motion is not clear. I would like Mr. Moore to explain to me fully. If I understand correctly, we still have witnesses to hear regarding Bill C-36. Once we have heard from them, whether on Wednesday or at another time, we will begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36 and that consideration will have to be completed before the end of the meeting.

Have I understood correctly, because that is not what is set out in the motion.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Chair, to answer Mr. Murphy's question, no, my goal here is not to have us not hear any other witnesses on Bill C-36; it is just to finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-36. If there are witnesses we want to hear who are already scheduled, or others we can hear that day, ultimately I'd like to see us finish Bill C-36 after we've heard from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As there are no amendments, I expect we'll be considering that. There may be some amendments on Bill C-36, but it's reasonable to expect, if in fact those are the only two witnesses we have next meeting, that we'll be able to get all the clause-by-clause done on those two bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Let me tell you what is preliminarily scheduled for our next meeting. We have two more witnesses on Bill C-36, Allan Manson and the Correctional Service of Canada, which will provide us with some statistics. Then we were going to go to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 and Bill C-232. I don't expect that Bill C-232 will take much time. Is the government proposing any amendments to Bill C-232?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, thanks, Chair.

The motion is pretty easy to understand. We would complete clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 on Wednesday. You've mentioned Bill C-52. We have another bill before our committee and other work we'd like to get moving on. I think today's our third day of testimony on Bill C-36. That's why I would like to see us with a concrete plan to complete Bill C-36. The nature of my motion would be to give us a definitive date on which we're going to wrap up Bill C-36, and that date, in my view, should be Wednesday.

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

That depends. Should we not first finish studying Bill C-36?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There are two other items. We're moving on to a review of Bill C-52. It's tentatively scheduled for November 16, which is the first meeting after the break. I want to make sure everybody knows we need a list of witnesses on Bill C-52. You have your formal notice. Please submit to us the list of witnesses you'd like to hear on Bill C-52, which is the white collar crime legislation.

Since we'll be moving to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 some time in the very near future, depending on the outcome of the motion, we'd like to have your amendments as soon as possible.

It's the same thing for Bill C-232. We want to move toward clause-by-clause on that as well, so if you have amendments to that bill please get them to the clerk as soon as possible.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

My understanding—and please, committee, correct me if I'm wrong—is that Bill C-36 is a full repeal of section 745.6, the faint hope clause, other than for individuals to which it does not apply after the date it is passed. That's where the five years come in, because there are many individuals who can't go retroactive. So it's going to affect many individuals. That's just the way it is, and I don't have a problem with that.

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

Can I therefore conclude or assume that you do not support, or have serious problems with, the government Bill C-36, which does not repeal section 745 but allows the faint hope clause to continue to exist, albeit under some changed conditions? An inmate serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years would still have the right to apply under that section.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, Victims of Violence]

Thank you.

My remarks might take a little bit longer, but not too much longer, than ten minutes. Thank you.

I wish to thank the committee for inviting Victims of Violence to present our views on Bill C-36. I am appearing today on behalf of Victims of Violence in support of this bill. I am not going to speak on the body of this bill, since all of you know it very well. However, I will touch on the historical background.

As most of you know, or have come to know, the issue of the faint hope clause is not new. The faint hope clause and the issues surrounding it began with great controversy when it was enacted in 1976 when capital punishment was abolished. In fact, it passed by only six votes. Since then, subsequent governments have continued to struggle with it through the years.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not think my turn was coming up that fast, but I am ready, to echo the words of a famous Quebec political party leader regrettably reelected for another term. That said, I wish to go a bit further than my colleague did a few moments ago in his words to the colleague from Mississauga South. It is important, because the Liberals are the ones who made major changes to the Criminal Code and who came up with what we are discussing today: the faint hope clause. It is extremely important.

It may be a rarity to do so in this House, but I will quote from an article in Le Devoir. In her most interesting article on Bill C-36 on June 10, headed “The strength of intimidation”, Manon Corneiller wrote as follows:

The last Conservative bill has been introduced [...]. Bill C-36 would eliminate a provision in the Criminal Code known as the faint hope clause. Among other things, that clause makes it possible for a person who has been found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with possibility of parole after 25 years to seek permission to apply for parole after 15 years.

This also applies, and I will come back to this, to second degree murder.

The opposition parties—

I presume that includes us. Perhaps not the Liberals, after yesterday's coalition, but it does mean us. So, continuing:

The opposition parties think that the justice committee is better equipped [a response to the question from the colleague from Mississauga South] to examine the bill, and it will go there because they are planning to support the bill at second reading [which we do]. None of the three parties has stated its final position, however [it is clear]. There are many reservations.

Then we have the words of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

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

The journalist continues:

It is to the parties' credit that they want to study these bills carefully, because they will affect the lives of thousands of people. But their cautiousness is dictated in part by political imperatives and a direct reaction to the Conservative approach. The opposition avoids opposing a bill automatically, especially if it means defending the rights of the worst criminals.

We remember all too well the fate the Conservatives reserved for the former Liberal leader...The courts finally forced the Conservatives to give in...

The fear of being targeted in their turn by the Conservatives' populist and simplistic attacks is pushing the Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the NDP to watch what they say. Opposing a prejudice sometimes requires pointed arguments that rarely filter down to the public.

That is the whole debate. The faint hope clause is extremely important. We are told that we do not care about the victims. Yet victims are the reason for section 745 and the amendments to the Criminal Code. The Conservatives will have to understand that. One can see from the current provisions concerning the faint hope clause—and I will come back to this later if I have time, because I have a lot to say about it—that concern for victims is paramount. Why? Because there is no worse crime than taking a life, committing murder. It is the worst crime a person can commit. If we do not look after the victims in the case of murder, I do not know who will.

The Bloc Québécois believes that one priority is to ensure that this bill respects victims. They will have to be told how the bill works. There have been many changes to the legislation. Canada used to have the death penalty, which was abolished and replaced with life sentences. Offenders sentenced to life for first-degree murder must serve a minimum of 25 years.

For the people who are watching us, I will add that a first-degree murder is a premeditated murder. A person who analyzes, thinks, makes a decision and obtains the means to kill someone is committing premeditated murder. I have just one example in mind: the settling of accounts by the Hells Angels. It is clear that when the Hells Angels decided to end the reign of the Bandidos, they committed first-degree murders. These were premeditated murders.

Second degree murders are unpremeditated. My colleague from Hochelaga rightly mentioned an example earlier in this House. These are probably the most common and most familiar murders. Someone shows up at a place, finds his spouse with another person, and in a sudden act of madness decides to get rid of them, finds a weapon and kills them, commits an unpremeditated murder. This is a second degree murder. It remains a murder, however, and liable to life imprisonment.

Over the years, the options were improved, although it is difficult to use that term in this context. In my opinion, legislators were wise. They said that there were two options for a killer: either he himself is killed or he is kept in prison. If he is kept in prison, a solution has to be found. Might this person return to society one day? Legislators said he could return to society if he demonstrated improvement, demonstrated that he had changed.

It is the opinion of the Bloc Québécois that section 745.6 and following, as amended over the years, have three main purposes. First, they offer some hope for offenders who demonstrate significant ability to rehabilitate. I do not have to give names in this House, but we have heard testimony from informers and persons who testified in famous cases involving the Hells Angels and organized crime. They have appeared saying that they were killers, that they were paid to kill and they killed. Such a person must not return to society unless he has made very significant progress.

Furthermore, the objective of the faint hope clause was to motivate good conduct in prison and recognize that it was not in the public interest to continue incarcerating certain offenders beyond a period of 15 years. That being said, we need to look at how this works. There have been changes over the years, but an individual has always been permitted to come back before the court. If he is sentenced to 25 years, he will be able to come back. He had the faint hope clause. This is important.

It must be explained to the population that respect for victims is very important. In the bill before us, respect for victims and their families is very important. The murdered person can no longer appear to testify, but he leaves a family, a spouse, children and relatives in mourning. Obviously, recalling the murder is extremely difficult for these persons. Do we have to mention what happened at the École Polytechnique?

For the victims of these events, and for their parents, even though the murderer died by suicide, simply talking about the tragedy, as we saw this year, since it was the anniversary, is painful. December 6 will be forever stamped on these people’s lives.

Not everyone has access to the faint hope clause.

We have to understand that in the criminal lawyer’s jargon, an individual who commits first degree murder is said to have to serve a minimum sentence of 25 years. Second degree murder results in a sentence of between 10 and 15 years. Judges generally decide when the person may be released.

We will recall the unfortunate Latimer case, where the father killed his daughter because she could never have recovered. That was considered to be second degree murder. He was sentenced to serve a minimum of 10 years in prison. After his 10-year term, he came before the National Parole Board to make an application.

In assessing a murder, by following an extremely stringent procedure, we ensure that victims are respected and we ensure that we are not releasing criminals.

The individual must appear before the chief justice of the superior court or a judge designated by them to hear the case. The individual may apply to a judge of the superior court after serving the minimum required, 10 or 15 years, generally, for second degree murder, and 15 years for first degree murder. The chief justice of the superior court in the province where the murder was committed may allow the individual to apply for parole after considering all the facts. The individual must satisfy the judge, and the judge must consider all the facts. What kind of murder was it? What happened? Is it probable that the inmate will persuade a jury? If the judge allows the individual to appear before them and allows the individual to make an application, then the second step is reached. The judge then empanels a jury.

Since 1997, the jury has had to unanimously agree to allow the inmate to apply for parole. Before 1997, two thirds was sufficient. Now, it must be proved to the jury as a whole. The public has to understand that the fact that a judge agrees to hear a case does not mean that the judge will empanel a jury and the individual will automatically be released. No, it does not work that way.

The judge hears a case and has the individual appear before them. The individual calls witnesses, who are generally people from the Federal Training Centre. They explain that in 15 years the individual may have changed. That is when the judge empanels a jury. The jury cannot release the individual. The only thing the jury can do is say unanimously to the individual that it is satisfied that he or she may make an application for parole. The individual is not released yet; far from it. On some occasions a judge has asked for a jury to be empanelled, a jury was empanelled, evidence was given before the jury and the jury came to the conclusion that the individual could apply to the National Parole Board, and the individual was not released.

If the applicant passes the first two stages, and the jury permits him to apply for parole, he then has to appear before the National Parole Board. That is important.

If some people think that victims are not protected, they would do well to listen to the statistics. I am not talking about 15 years ago. I am talking about April 9, 2009.

On that date, 265 applications were submitted, and 140 applicants were given a reduced period of parole ineligibility. That is not many. This means that the judge, jury and National Parole Board do a very good job. One hundred and forty people were given a reduced period of parole ineligibility. They have not yet been released on parole. Of that number of applicants, the National Parole Board gave the reduction to 127, 13 of whom subsequently returned to prison—I will come back to this if I have the time—3 were deported, 11 died, one was on bail, one was in provisional detention and 98 met the conditions of their parole.

I can already see a Conservative colleague rising to ask me whether the 13 had re-offended, since they went back to prison. I asked the question. None of the 13 returned to prison for reasons of violence, such as armed robbery and so on. It was nothing like that. They broke the conditions of their parole. People have to understand. If an individual is released on parole before the end of his 25-year prison sentence, in the 18^th year of his 25-year sentence, he is subject to the requirements of parole between the 18^th and 25^th year. For 7 years, he is under very strict surveillance.

The proof is that there have been no repeat murders by those released on parole. There has been no violence, with all due respect to the member for Pontiac. No violence was committed by those paroled after committing murder. The finest example concerns Mr. Dunn, a lawyer, who killed his colleague, Mr. McNicoll, in Lac-Saint-Jean. It was a premeditated murder. He was released on parole after serving between 15 and 17 years of his prison sentence. Since then, Mr. Dunn, obviously no longer a lawyer, helps prisoners return to society. There you have the faint hope clause.

The Conservatives would like to eliminate the faint hope clause with this bill. In committee, we will have to look at it very carefully. I would like people who have served prison sentences for murder and benefited from the faint hope clause to come and testify before us. I say, with respect, that the system functions very well at the moment. It is under supervision.

We agree to this bill's being studied in committee. However, as I was in criminal law for a number of years, I believe deeply that the individual, however bad a criminal he may be, must be given the opportunity to return to society. Otherwise, we should give him the option to die in detention or give him the choice. We do not know, but some individuals have returned to society and become active members again even though they have committed serious crimes, murder being the worst.

I am having a very hard time with the idea of removing the faint hope clause. It would take a lot to convince me. I believe, however, that I can convince my colleagues. At the moment, there is such supervision that it would be a very serious error to not continue to allow individuals, the worst criminals, to benefit from the faint hope clause.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I will read something said by his colleague, the NDP critic on the committee, because I think it is fundamental. He said something like this: “And what if the lack of hope crushed the desire for rehabilitation of the convicted and increased violence and the problems in prisons?

My question has to do with this observation. We are dealing with the worst crime, namely murder. Bill C-36 concerns the faint hope clause. Does he believe that adopting this bill in its present form will lead to a reduction in violent crimes committed in our society, murder in particular?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying there is no doubt that the most compelling argument for Bill C-36 is indeed the victims. Under the current faint hope clause, the victims have to relive the nightmare of the crime that was perpetrated against their family, against their loved ones. There is no doubt that the government has a compelling argument. It is for that reason, I think primarily, that in this corner of the House we will be voting in favour of Bill C-36 in order to get it to committee.

As the House well knows, the parliamentary process is set up with a system of checks and balances. This is something that is extremely important in this particular case for this particular bill. We have second reading, which is debate in principle on the bill, the principle of whether or not the faint hope clause should essentially be eliminated. From there the bill goes to committee, and that is the point where we will certainly be pressing to hear from every organization. Whether we are talking about victims organizations, victims services, those who represent parolees, police officers, parole officers, everyone in the system needs to be heard at the committee level so that we can ensure that the legislation does what the government purports that it does. At the same time we are ensuring our place in the House as the effective opposition and that amendments are made to the legislation to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or collateral fallout and that indeed we feel that this is in the best interest of the country and of Canadians.

I certainly hope the committee process will be extremely serious, in depth and effective in ensuring that the committee has heard from everyone in a consultative process that allows Canadians from coast to coast to participate. Often committee deliberations are done in a very perfunctory way. Often proposed witnesses who are submitted by the NDP are rejected out of hand. We hope that will not be the case and that due diligence will be done at the committee level.

Then we will bring the legislation back to the House to consider amendments that other members of the House may want to put forward at report stage. The final stage is third reading where we take a very in depth look at the legislation itself. At that point the question is whether or not to pass the legislation as amended.

At this point, the second reading stage, we are saying in principle that we are certainly willing to look at the bill because of the compelling arguments that are raised with regard to the victims having to relive the nightmare of their loved ones.

The real test I think will be at the committee stage to see to what extent the government is willing to hear voices from across Canada, very learned voices and those who have a key stake in this legislation, either way. From that point then I think we can look to see how the legislation can be improved.

There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation can be improved and must be improved, but that will be something for our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and other members of the justice committee to do when that time comes.

A social democratic approach to the criminal justice system is based on ensuring that the victims are responded to by the system. That is why I put forward Bill C-372, which essentially proposes changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that victims' restitution is part and parcel of the judicial process and no longer an option for judges, but mandatory as part of the process. I put forward that amendment to the Criminal Code because I feel there is a profound argument that can be made that victims are often lost in the system.

It is essential for parliamentarians to hear the voices of victims and to ensure that their voices are heard every time legislation is brought forward. The victims' voices are part of a broader consultation process that has to take place.

We in this corner of the House have been advocating for some time for a comprehensive approach to the criminal justice system. Legislation obviously is one of the pillars. We must as a Parliament regularly take into account whether or not legislation is working, whether or not the Criminal Code is working and what adjustments have to be made.

For the government to limit its approach simply to legislation does a disservice to Canadians. There are other pillars of the justice system that have to be taken into consideration.

Since emerging out of the CCF, the NDP's hallmark in Parliament has been the need for substantial funding for crime prevention. The most effective approach to the criminal justice system is to stop crime from being committed in the first place. By investing in crime prevention services and crime prevention strategies, many other countries around the world have reduced their crime rate, and that means fewer victims.

By ensuring that the voices of victims past are heard ensures fewer victims in the future. We will have fewer victims in the future by investing in an effective way in crime prevention. Tragically, the Conservative government has done exactly the opposite. It has cut back on crime prevention programs and crime prevention strategies. It has done the exact opposite of what it needs to do. Most Canadians would want the government to increase crime prevention funding and crime prevention strategies.

Funding is a major pillar that the government has far from increased. If the Conservatives were really concerned about criminal justice issues, they would put more funding into crime prevention. That would ensure an effective way of reducing crime. The government has done the opposite.

Study after study has shown that for every dollar invested in crime prevention, we save six dollars later on in policing costs, in court costs, in incarceration costs. It just makes good economic and fiscal sense. There is no more effective argument for crime prevention programs than the economic argument.

The NDP has been the foremost advocate for enhanced funding for crime prevention. We will continue to press the government to do the right thing and to invest in crime prevention rather than cutting back.

Another pillar of crime prevention strategy in a criminal justice system is adequate funding for policing. The government committed in past elections to fund an extra 2,500 police officers across the country. That promise simply has not been kept. Police officers in various parts of the country are frustrated by the fact that the government has chosen not to keep its promise.

Having 2,500 more police officers on the streets of our cities would make a difference in the effectiveness of policing. Police departments are overburdened in many parts of the country. Police officers are often being asked to do far too much. If we want our police forces to be effective, we have to provide an effective number of officers, and that has not happened. Again that is an area in which the government fell short.

This is not only about funding for police officers. This is also about respect, or lack of, that has come from the government toward police officers.

Three years ago in the House we adopted a motion for a public safety officer compensation fund. The Conservatives at that time voted in favour of it, and yet they have steadfastly refused to provide a compensation fund for the families of those police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. There again the government has fallen short.

The Conservatives have fallen short on court funding as well. Because of that, there are bottlenecks in the court system.

There are a number of pillars in the criminal justice system. Bill C-36 deals with one of them, but the other three, lamentably, have been neglected by the government.

In this corner of the House the New Democratic Party caucus will vote to move this forward to committee so we can have that strenuous examination of the bill, but we will certainly continue to keep the government's feet to the fire on the other pillars it has neglected.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-36.

At the outset, I am very eager to see this legislation passed on to committee, where we will deal with it. We look forward to hearing from the presenters regarding elements of the bill. I believe our caucus will have some very positive amendments to benefit victims and support the rights of victims and to improve the situation overall.

Back in 1976, Parliament abolished capital punishment and replaced it with mandatory life sentences for high treason and first and second degree murder. At the same time, ineligibility periods for parole were established. For high treason and first degree murder, parole ineligibility periods were set at 25 years.

In addition, the Liberal government introduced the 15-year judicial review, known as the faint hope clause. Warren Allmand, who was the solicitor general of Canada at the time, and those of us who followed the issues at the time remember him, introduced the new provision with the following comment, “to keep them in for 25 years in my view is a waste of resources, a waste of a person's life”.

I would like to advise the House, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Section 745.6(1) allows for people who are convicted of murder or high treason and who have served 15 years of their sentences to have their parole ineligibility period reviewed and possibly shortened. The process is heavily weighted in favour of the offender, from a victim's point of view. The emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than the crime itself. The impact of the crime is extremely traumatic when it comes to the family of the victim.

We want to demonstrate that Criminal Code Section 745.6(1), the application for judicial review, is not an automatic process. This process is very involved. A lot of steps have to be taken for anybody applying for the faint hope option.

Section 745.6(1) states:

Subject to subsection (2), a person may apply, in writing, to the appropriate Chief Justice in the province in which their conviction took place for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole if the person (a) has been convicted of murder or high treason; (b) has been sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until more than fifteen years of their sentence has been served; and (c) has served at least fifteen years of their sentence.

The exception brought in by the previous Liberal government a few years ago excluded people who were multiple murderers. I think we can pretty much all agree that this was a good idea.

Subsection (2) states:

A person who has been convicted of more than one murder may not make an application under subsection (1), whether or not proceedings were commenced in respect of any of the murders before another murder was committed.

An application for a section 745 hearing is heard in the court. Section 745.6 requires that the chief justice of the province where the offence took place screen an application for judicial review. If the chief justice decides that the application may proceed, there will be a hearing. At the hearing, evidence is first presented by the applicant. Witnesses for the applicant usually include an applicant's family and friends, psychologists or psychiatrists, guards employed at the facility where the applicant is in prison and teachers if the applicant has taken any type of courses.

Representatives of the National Parole Board will also have been called to testify that even if the application is successful, the board does not always grant parole to these applications. The crown prosecutor may then present evidence regarding such things as the applicant's conduct and behaviour while incarcerated.

In terms of the role of the jury, because that is the next process, before the application is heard in court, section 745.6 requires that the chief justice screen an application for judicial review. If the chief justice decides that the application may proceed, the jury will hear the case. The jury must come to a decision after considering the following: the character of the offender after having served 15 years; the conduct and behaviour of the offender while in prison; the nature of the offence, based on the agreed upon facts in the case; the information provided by the victim; and specific matter the judge deems relevant to the application.

After hearing the application, the jury can make the following possible decisions: first, the offender can immediate apply for parole; or second, reduce the parole eligibility period by a specified amount of time; or third, the offender must serve the entire 25 years before parole eligibility. Even if the jury reduces the parole ineligibility period, the National Parole Board must still establish at a parole hearing whether an offender should receive parole. That is the third step in the process.

Not all applications to the board lead to an offender's release. In making its decision, the board must consider whether an offender's release will present an undue risk to society. In fact, the jury is asked a series of questions. One of the questions is, “Do you unanimously agree that the applicant's number of years in prison without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence and the nature of the murder for which he was convicted and the victim's impact statement”. It takes only one person out of the jury to say no and that is it.

This is an improvement over the previous legislation where, I believe, two-thirds of the jury had to agree. Now 100% of the jury has to agree. That improvement was made by amendments back in 1997.

In terms of the victim participation in section 745 hearings, we know, even in property crimes, a number of years ago, the victims were not given very good treatment. I can recall situations where people had break-ins to their homes, which is a very traumatic process for anybody who has ever gone through that, and they would get no help in from the police force and not a lot of sympathy in the process.

Particularly in my province of Manitoba over the course of the last 10 years of NDP government, and the Conservative government before that, the rights of victims were improved. The victim had a right to know the disposition of the case and was given updates and counselling, which is very important. I know of a situation where a person was involved in a robbery, whether the gun was real or not, the person to this day has had psychological problems in dealing with the situation. Nowadays there are provisions for people to have counselling when these events happen. This is a very positive for the victims.

Before 1997, it was left to the judge's discretion whether the jury would be able to consider information provided by the victims during the judicial review process. Section 745.6 now allows for the families of victims to provide information concerning the impact the crime had on them during the application hearing. Under section 745.6(3), the family of the victim may provide information, either orally or in writing, at the discretion of the victim or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate.

Of course, while that is an important part of the process, people are also being victimized again when they have to appear at hearings when the applications for the faint hope clause are made—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Hochelaga on his work in committee on this issue, which is not an easy one.

It is not an easy issue, especially when it involves this kind of bill, and I would like to take the next few minutes to explain how I see things.

Since the Bloc Québécois has no objection to referring Bill C-36 to committee for examination, what sort of questions does my colleague think the committee should ask when studying Bill C-36, particularly before it goes any further?

As the previous hon. member said, the member for Hochelaga, who has not yet been called to the bar—unfortunately for us—will probably have some interesting things to say in committee.

What is his position? What does he plan to say? What questions would he like to see the committee members ask during their study of the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to commend and thank the member for Hochelaga for his comments and for his passion on this issue. He is so passionate and wanted to speak some more, so I am going to give him the opportunity to answer a question.

He talked about the procedure and the effect on certain convicted individuals. He cited a hypothetical example of a spurned lover. He talked about the processes. However, at no time during his 20-minute dissertation did he talk about the victims,

I specifically want to ask him what effect he thinks Bill C-36 would have on the victims of crime, specifically the families of a deceased individual, by sparing them the emotional trauma of having to attend and sometimes testify at court proceedings under the faint-hope clause or hearings before the National Parole Board.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 is a bill that the Bloc Québécois wants to see referred to committee, but I can offer no guarantees in this House that we will support the bill at third reading. We need more information. We want to understand the real impact of the bill, but obviously we think it is a bill that needs to be seriously considered in Committee.

In 1976, the death penalty was abolished and murder was reclassified, if you will, into two categories: first degree murder and second degree murder. In both cases, the punishment is imprisonment for life. The difference is in respect of parole eligibility. For first degree murder, the murderer must serve at least 25 years of their sentence before being eligible for parole. In the case of second degree murder, they must serve at least 10 years of their sentence, other than in certain exceptional cases, for example where the case involves an intentional murder under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, where it was a question of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the murder, or where the murder was a criminal organization offence.

The faint hope clause, as it is called, is found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, which provides for possible eligibility for parole. That section was added to the Criminal Code when the death penalty was abolished and murder was reclassified as first degree or second degree murder. We must remember the reason why section 745.6 was added to the Criminal Code. There were essentially three reasons. There was a desire to offer hope to offenders who demonstrated some capacity for rehabilitation; there was a desire to provide motivation for good conduct in prison; and there was also a desire to recognize that it was not in the public interest to keep someone incarcerated, in certain circumstances, beyond 15 years. Obviously, I would remind all members of this House and all those at home watching that the faint hope clause is an exceptional provision that comes into play before eligibility for parole.

The faint hope clause procedure, as my good colleague from Abitibi knows, has relatively clear rules. In order for that provision, which is found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, to apply, there is of course a three-step process. The first step is screening by a judge. If my information is correct, that is in fact the chief justice of the superior court. The judge examines the application and must determine the potential, the real prospect that a jury will agree to allow the applicant to be granted early parole. So first, the chief justice of the superior court where the murder was committed must hear the application. Second, the judge must agree to empanel a jury of 12 members, and that jury must agree, by a two-thirds vote, that parole, what I would call early parole, will be granted. And third, of course, the application is submitted to the National Parole Board, which has full authority to accept or deny the application. There is a clear set of rules for the process: it is examined by the chief justice of the superior court, a 12-member jury is empanelled and the application must be accepted by two thirds, and it is assessed by the National Parole Board.

I might go into a little more detail regarding the process to be followed when one wishes to invoke section 745.6. I would say that, yes, persons who commit first degree or second degree murder must be given exemplary sentences. However, up to a certain point, should we not ask ourselves as parliamentarians whether there are not circumstances where it would be desirable for an individual, after 15 years of detention without parole, to be able to exercise this provision, since justice is never automatic, and never one-size-fits-all? With its three steps, does the process not offer sufficient guarantees to stand as a safeguard? People will study the merit of this application. There is no risk of frivolous applications that will be accepted even though an individual does not deserve access to early parole.

I am going to describe the three steps in some detail.

First, the applicant must convince the chief justice or a designated judge in the province of the conviction. The applicant, who is normally behind bars, must convince the chief justice that there is a real possibility of the application being successful. For example, multiple repeat offenders, that is, people who have committed several murders, have no chance of their application succeeding. The application is not even admissible, and the chief justice could not permit the process to be started.

If the chief justice or the designated judge finds, to his best understanding of the case, that two-thirds of the jury is not likely to allow the applicant access to some kind of early parole, under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, the applicant fails. The judge must then set a waiting period, which is generally two years, before a new application may be made. The judge may even set a longer period. For example, I am an applicant. I am presently on parole. I show real signs of rehabilitation. I have served the 10 or 15 years of detention without parole. I appear before the chief justice of the superior court. He may tell me to come back in two years or some other time period which he finds to be reasonable.

Second, the applicant must convince a jury of 12 citizens who have to decide on this. Let me go back, I have made one little error, reminding me of my fallible human nature. It was like that before, but the process was revised in 1999, and the jury now has to decide unanimously, not in a proportion of two-thirds. I would have expected the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue to whisper that to me. I do not hold it against him, but I urge him to remain vigilant. So it is not two-thirds of the jury, but the entire jury that must accept the application for early parole.

If the jury refuses, we know how it works. A jury is constituted from certain lists. Of course, in a trial, the way that the public is involved in the administration of justice is through the constitution and presence of a jury. If the jury refuses, but does not prohibit the filing of new applications, another application may be made, once again, after two years or after a longer period, as the jury may decide. If the jury accepts, on the other hand, it has to set a new period, which will be reduced.

Third, the jury will obviously consider the application, deliberate and approve or reject it. If the application is approved it will be sent to the National Parole Board.

I looked for statistics that would give us an idea of the scope of this phenomenon and have some. As of April 9, 2009, relatively recently, 265 applications had been submitted under section 745.6. Of that number, 140 had been approved and so 140 individuals had been given a period of time prior to their eligibility for parole.

With a ratio of 140 to 265, are we not approaching 45% or 50%? Can I say that?

The National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants. I will now provide some slightly more specific statistics. Thirteen individuals subsequently returned to prison—we can speculate on the fact that they were returned for breaking parole and failed to meet the conditions of it—three were deported, 11 died and were recalled to heaven—fate, it could be called—one was on bail, one was in provisional detention, and the most important of the statistics, 98 individuals of 127—we are closer here to two thirds—met the conditions of their parole.

In our assessment of the situation, we have to say that, when the stages set out in section 745.6 have been followed, two thirds of the individuals who were eligible early for parole met the conditions of it.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is wise and as a solicitor misses nothing. I do not know whether it is because he is used to this with wills, but he reminded me that adding the 11 dead to the 98 individuals who met the conditions of their parole makes the proportion higher than two thirds.

I would like to return to the 98 individuals, because it is here the Bloc's question lies. Why is there a need to repeal a provision of an exceptional nature? We are talking about 127 individuals in all these years. Is it not reassuring in the administration of justice to know that the provision exists?

People can commit second degree murder when they lose their mind, but it is still a reprehensible act and there are still innocent victims. It is certainly not my intention to minimize the seriousness of second degree murder. However, are there not situations in which individuals sentenced for second degree murder with no previous record show they are truly rehabilitated?

I will give you an unfortunate but convincingly instructive example.

Madam Speaker, allow me to give an example. You learn that the person you love, who has been sharing your life for a number of years is, unfortunately, cheating on you with the neighbour, and the community knows it. You are in a rage and commit murder out of jealousy. You are a respected individual and have responsibilities in your community.

You are liked by her peers. You have always led a good life. You have had significant responsibilities in the community.

Then, in a moment of craziness, you kill your her husband when you find out he has been cheating on you. You are therefore convicted of second degree murder. This is an act, of course, that we as a society must punish severely. You find yourself behind bars. In this specific example, though, would you not be the kind of person who should be eligible for early parole?

If this Conservative bill ever passes and the faint hope clause does not exist, would we have made a mistake? We would have deprived ourselves of a provision in the administration of justice that can be beneficial in some circumstances.

I want to provide a few statistics on the people who could be eligible. At the present time, 4,000 prisoners are serving life sentences in Canada. According to the most recent statistics of April 9, 2009, 1,001 prisoners could be eligible for early parole. Four hundred and fifty-nine of them have already served at least 15 years of their sentence and could therefore apply. When the bill gets royal assent, at least 459 people will be eligible to apply under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Five hundred and forty-two offenders will not have served 15 years yet but will soon be able to apply. On average, 43 of the 1,001 prisoners will be able to apply every year.

If things continue and section 745.6 is maintained, nearly 50 people a year will be eligible. This does not mean, of course, that the juries or the National Parole Board will grant their request, but they will be eligible.

Bill C-36 would entirely eliminate—and before the day on which the change comes into force—the right of all offenders to apply for early parole who were convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason. In addition, the last clause in the bill tells us this day will be determined by an order in council.

Parliamentarians must realize that if Bill C-36 passes, section 745.6 of the Criminal Code will be revoked. I just gave the example of a crime of passion. In committee, we are going to try to find out who has benefited from this section in order to know whether it should exist. We have no fixed opinion yet. We are prepared to listen to all sides. Just as much, though, as we want to send this bill to committee, we are concerned about the possibility that we might be depriving ourselves of a tool that is well suited to certain cases.

The bill would also tighten the conditions under which all offenders convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason before the day on which the change comes into force may make an application, including those who are already serving their sentence. This means that there would be four changes to the current procedure. First of all, tougher selection criteria will apply for judicial review

Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up but I started my remarks at 11:55. Since I was given 20 minutes to speak, I could continue until 12:20. Am I mistaken here?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook who did an admiral job this morning describing and outlining Bill C-36. I also wish to thank him for his efforts in moving the private member's bill in the last Parliament that would have rid the country of the faint hope clause and the inspiration of that private member's bill leading to a government piece of legislation. It is not often that happens. It is obvious that the government and the justice minister see the importance of moving this piece of legislation forward.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-36, Criminal Code amendments that will put an end to the so-called faint hope provision. It is not often that we repeal or eliminate a provision of the Criminal Code, so some explanation of the faint hope provision is needed before we discuss the bill before us.

What is the faint hope provision? The faint hope provision applies to those who commit murder, the most serious offence in our law. The faint hope provision is in fact a section of the Criminal Code, section 745.6, which was first enacted in 1976 when Parliament replaced death sentences for murder with mandatory life terms of imprisonment and parole ineligibility periods: 25 years for first degree murder and a minimum of 10 years and up to 25 years for second degree murder, and 25 years for high treason.

Remember that a life sentence is indeed for life and for a murderer that is exactly how it should be. Offenders may eventually be released on parole after 25 years but those offenders are serving their life sentence under the conditions of parole.

The faint hope clause permits an offender serving a life sentence to apply for a chance to have parole earlier than prescribed. So after 15 years of a life sentence an application could be made for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.

I should emphasize that this not a parole application but rather a step before a parole application. The 15 years in prison does not reflect the severity of the crime of murder and the chance of parole after 15 years. It simply does not reflect what Canadians expect of a life sentence.

This government promised Canadians that we would get tough on crime, that we would hold offenders to account and we would show compassion and respect for victims and the families of victims.

The government has delivered with important reforms including addressing dangerous offenders, gun crime, organized crime, drug crime, auto theft and identity theft. This government delivers what it promises and Bill C-36 delivers on our promise to get rid of the faint hope clause and ensure that murderers serve sentences in jail until they are ready to be released on parole.

The people of Canada have long questioned why a murderer who receives a life sentence and is required to serve 25 years before seeking parole should be able to get any chance of parole earlier. Many victims have said that it is the victims that receive the true life sentence because their family member is gone forever.

Ironically, while 15 years may seem like an eternity for families mourning the murder of a loved one, 15 years seems far too soon for families to deal with a faint hope application by the offender and the possibility of a parole hearing.

Victims who have attended faint hope hearings have said that this process causes them to relive the whole tragedy of the family member's murder and the trial process that led to the conviction of the offender. No one asks to be a victim and no one should have to be revictimized again and again by our justice system.

Our justice system has changed over the last 20 years and victims now have a greater role. I have witnessed firsthand what victims' families have to go through in the St. Catharines community, what it means to have to face the possibility of a murderer getting out earlier than the sentence that he or she was given.

Some may suggest that victims of crime should simply rely on the crown and the judge, and avoid the additional trauma, but every family member of a murder victim will agree and will tell us that they are there for the memory of the victim, and to ensure that the judge is aware of the impact that the murderer has had on their lives. They want to ensure that the safety of the community and their safety is considered.

Bill C-36 addresses these concerns, but what exactly does the bill do? This reform will bar everyone who commits murder or high treason in the future from applying for faint hope. Those who commit murder after this law comes into force will no longer be eligible to apply for an earlier parole eligibility date after serving 15 years of their sentence.

The reforms in Bill C-36 respect the fundamental legal principle that the law cannot change retroactively to, in effect, change the sentence of a person who is already serving or awaiting that sentence. The bill will not bar an offender completely from access to faint hope in the same way as is proposed for future offenders. But even though some “lifers” will still be entitled to apply for faint hope, there will be new rules and new procedures in place.

These new procedures will apply to offenders who are already serving a life sentence, to those who are awaiting a life sentence, and to those who have been charged, but not yet convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason.

There is currently a three-step process involved for offenders applying for faint hope. The new procedures in Bill C-36 will make some changes to these three steps. First, an applicant must pass a screening test conducted by a superior court judge who will decide whether the applicant can go on to the next stage of the process.

Some courts have suggested that this test is relatively easy to meet. Bill C-36 makes this a higher test for offenders from “a reasonable prospect” to a “substantial likelihood” of success. This will screen out most of the most undeserving applicants.

If unsuccessful at the first stage, the applicant can apply again in two years unless the judge makes the period longer. Bill C-36 will increase this to five years. This will mean an offender with a 25-year parole ineligibility period, for example, can only make two faint hope applications at the 15 and at the 20 year mark.

The change from two to five years will create more certainty for victims' families about when a faint hope hearing will occur and reduce the trauma that these hearings often inflict on them. Victims' families will know that if they must face a subsequent faint hope hearing, it will be at least be five years down the road. It still is not easy, but it means it simply will not happen every two years.

Second, at present, an applicant who successfully gets past the first stage must convince a 12 member jury that he or she should be able to apply for early parole. If the jury unanimously agrees that the offender should be able to apply early, it also decides when that application may be made. If the jury says no, the offender can reapply to a judge at two years unless the jury makes that period longer. Bill C-36 will change this to a five year period.

Under the current system an offender can apply for faint hope at any point after reaching 15 years in his or her life sentence. Bill C-36 will set a three month window on faint hope applications. This means that once an offender is eligible to apply for the faint hope, the application must be made within three months of the date of becoming eligible. If this three month window is missed for whatever reason, the offender will have to wait a full five years to apply again. This offers victims some certainty about when the faint hope application may arise rather than wondering when they will be faced with an application that the offender could bring at any time after the 15 year mark.

Third, in the event that the offender is successful and they are given a chance to apply for parole earlier than prescribed in their sentence, they must then apply to the National Parole Board which will determine whether parole should be granted and on what conditions.

Bill C-36 is not making any changes to the law that governs parole, only to the faint hope or the step before parole.

In summary, these procedural changes will apply to everyone who commits murder, or who is arrested for murder, or who is convicted for murder before the date the amendments come into force. All those who commit, or are arrested for, or who are convicted for murder on or after the coming into force of the bill will not be able to apply for faint hope at all.

Bill C-36 closes what has been described as a “loophole for lifers” in a way that balances respect for the law with respect for the rights of victims and their families.

This government stands up for victims of crime and stands up for law-abiding people of Canada. Bill C-36 is an important step in our strategy to hold offenders accountable and to ensure truth in sentencing. Serious crime deserves serious time and Bill C-36 reflects that goal.

I urge hon. members to give the bill their full support.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased to speak to this very important bill that will fulfill our platform commitment to repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause that allows a criminal serving a life sentence to apply for early parole.

I would first like to commend the hon. Minister of Justice for bringing forward this legislation. This issue is an important one to me. In the last Parliament I was pleased to table a private member's bill, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines, that dealt with this very issue.

The Criminal Code currently provides that the offences of first and second degree murder have mandatory terms of life imprisonment. These offences also have mandatory periods of parole ineligibility.

For 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 spend a minimum of 10 years in prison before being eligible to apply for parole. This minimum 10 year period can be increased by a sentencing court up to a maximum of 25 years, depending on a variety of factors, including the circumstances of the crime.

While this may seem like a very long time, the reality is that the faint hope regime provides a mechanism for offenders to seek to have this parole ineligibility period reduced. The current faint hope process is threefold.

First, an offender must convince a judge that he or she has a reasonable prospect of success, that the application will succeed. The courts have already told us that this judicial screening test is low and is not much of a hurdle. Second, if the judge is convinced, the applicant can bring the application for early parole to a jury. The offender must then persuade the jury of 12 ordinary Canadians to unanimously decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment that the applicant must serve without eligibility for parole. If the applicant is successful with the jury, at the third stage of this process, he or she may proceed directly to the National Parole Board to apply for parole.

Most successful faint hope applicants end up being paroled. There are several important time limits for unsuccessful faint hope applicants that are important to know for the purposes of understanding the reforms proposed in Bill C-36.

If unsuccessful during the first two steps in the faint hope application process, the judge or the jury can allow the applicant to reapply to a judge at a later date. The judge or jury may even decide that a particular applicant may never apply again. However, if the judge or the jury rejects the application but does not bar further applications or set a new date at which the offender may reapply, a minimum statutory time period kicks in and the applicant can automatically reapply in two years.

As I mentioned, the 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 murderers who are supposed to be serving up to 25 years in jail before applying to the National Parole Board are getting out of prison earlier than they would be if they had to serve the entire parole ineligibility period that they were given at sentencing.

The rationale for the bill before the House is very simple. 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 the most serious of crimes do the most serious time. That is what Bill C-36 aims to do, to restore truth in sentencing for murderers and to keep dangerous criminals in prison for longer periods of time.

I now propose to delve a little more deeply into the important reforms we are proposing in the bill. The proposal is, in its simplest form, twofold: repeal the faint hope clause for all future murderers and toughen the regime for murderers currently in prison.

With respect to the repeal, the bill would eliminate the faint hope regime for all those who commit murder or high treason after the coming into force of the act. As a result, these offenders would have to serve their entire mandatory parole period that was given at sentencing.

For example, if individuals commit murder after the bill comes into force and are convicted of first degree murder, they would have to serve the full 25-year parole ineligibility period before being eligible to apply for parole. Under the current regime, these murderers, those who have intentionally or unlawfully taken a life, would be able to apply at the 15 year mark of their sentence to have the 25-year parole ineligibility period reduced from 25 to 22, 20 or even 15 years.

Under the new regime proposed in Bill C-36 these murderers would have no chance at any point before the expiry of their 25-year parole ineligibility period to apply for parole. The faint hope regime would be gone, as we committed to do. No more would these murderers get the chance to apply to get out of jail early.

To be compliant with the charter, the repeal would not apply to those currently serving a sentence. Those currently in the system would still be able to apply under the faint hope regime. However, the reforms include a well-tailored scheme that would considerably toughen the regime for them.

This new regime would establish a higher screening test at the first stage where the judge examines the application. As I mentioned, the courts have indicated that the current test, a reasonable prospect of success, is not that high a hurdle.

We will make this test tougher. Applicants for faint hope would have to prove that they have a substantial prospect that their application will proceed. This would 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 our proposal, the individual would have to wait a minimum of five years.

For example, if a murderer who has served 15 years applies and is rejected by the judge, that offender would have to wait at least five years or until the 20 year mark of his or her sentence before reapplying.

The reforms also propose a new five year delay period during which offenders cannot apply if they fail to submit an application within a new three month window for faint hope applications.

The three month time limit would apply in the following situations.

First, it would apply to all those offenders who have served at least 15 years of their sentence and have not yet applied. There are many offenders in prison now who have served 15, 16, 17 and more years but who have not yet applied. These offenders would have to make an application within three months of this legislation coming into force or they will have to wait five years.

Second, it would apply to those offenders who are serving a sentence and have not reached the 15 year mark. These individuals could have served four years or eight years or 10 years when the bill passes. At the 15 year point exactly, all of these murderers will have to bring an application within three months or wait another five years to do so.

It is important to note that these proposals would also ensure that offenders do not keep victims' families anticipating whether an application will be forthcoming.

As I noted briefly, if under both examples an offender does not apply, the proposals in Bill C-36 would impose a five year period following a three month limit during which an offender could not apply again.

For example, offenders who have served 15 years at the coming into force date, but do not apply within the three month limitation upon reaching this date, will have to automatically wait until the 20th year of their sentence before bringing a first application.

Third, the three month limitation will apply at the expiry of the longer statutory minimum period of time of five years, for any offender who reapplies to a judge. If offenders apply at year 15 and a judge determines their application will not go forward to a jury, the individuals cannot apply again until the 20 year mark of their sentence.

At that point, the 20 year mark, the three month time limit starts to run. Once it expires and the offenders did not bring an application, they could not reapply for another five years.

Essentially, these reforms provide a higher hurdle at the outset for offenders by ensuring that they must bring an application or reapply within the new limitation period, three months, or wait the statutory mandated five years.

In short, these proposed reforms include this well-tailored scheme to respond to concerns raised by the public and by victims that the faint hope regime as presently constituted allows for far too lenient treatment of murderers.

The reforms set out in Bill C-36 would 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.

These proposed reforms would also ensure that the families and loved ones of murder victims are not forced to rehear the details of horrendous crimes again and again as they are sometimes required to do under the present regime.

I support the bill and I call on other members of the House to do so as well.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible for early parole. The short title of the legislation, creatively crafted by the Conservative government, is the “serious time for the most serious crime act”, which is a bit of a strong misnomer for the legislation.

From outset, the principle of the legislation, which is to eliminate the possibility of revision to parole for people who have committed murder or who are sentenced to life for high treason, is completely wrong. I am strongly opposed to the principle of the legislation. We are not well served by this process of a judicial review, of citizen review in fact, and the faint hope clause should not be part of our criminal justice system.

We have been well served by this. It has encouraged rehabilitation in our prison system. It has allowed for a measure of discretion to review the parole eligibility of people who have been sentenced to a life in prison. It has also encouraged a strong measure of citizen involvement in making the decisions on that very important process.

The legislation takes us absolutely down the wrong road, with no evidence that could support it. I do not think we have any evidence that this will make Canadians safer and that this will improve any of the outcomes we hope for from our criminal justice system or from our corrections system.

The current Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, dealing with judicial review, enables offenders serving life in prison, with parole ineligibility periods of more than 15 years, to apply for a reduction of that period. The review is not intended as a forum for retrial of the original offence. The focus is instead on the progress of the offender after having served at least 15 years of his or her sentence. That is the description from the Department of Justice of the intent of the legislation.

It is important to review the process that is involved when the faint hope clause is engaged by someone serving a life sentence in prison. The process people have to go through is a very rigorous one that involves several stages.

The first stage is an application to the chief justice of the province in which the person was convicted. The chief justice, or a designated Superior Court judge, reviews the written materials from the crown and the applicant. Then that judge determines, on the basis of the written materials, whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed. If the judge decides that, the next step is a jury is empaneled to hear the case. If the judge decides there is no reason to proceed further, the appeal process stops at that point and there is no further follow-up.

The jury, when it is constituted and empaneled, then considers a number of issues when it looks at the application from the person who is imprisoned. It considers, when it is determining whether there should be a reduction of parole ineligibility, the character of the applicant, his or her conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, information provided by the victim's family members about how the crime has affected them, and any other matters the judge has considered relevant in the circumstances.

A panel of 12 citizens considers those factors and makes the decision about the reduction of the period of ineligibility. The decision of that jury, to reduce the ineligibility period, must be unanimous. We are not talking about a simple majority or anything like that. The jury can reduce the parole ineligibility period immediately or at a later date, or deny any reduction.

When the jury unanimously decides that the number of years to be served should be reduced, it then decides by a two-thirds majority the number of years that must be served before the inmate can apply to the National Parole Board. If the jury decides the period of parole ineligibility is not to be reduced, it can set another time at which the prisoner can again apply for judicial review. If no date is set, then the prisoner can reapply after two years for this process to be engaged again.

It is a very complex process. The process initially involves a judge and then a jury of 12 citizens, two of the important features of our system. There is judicial discretion involved and there is a strong citizen involvement component. The community is absolutely represented in the decision that someone's parole should be reduced. However, that is not the end of the story, because then the parole board has to do its work. The decision about whether the person gets out on parole is made by the parole board in its usual fashion.

I think it is an outstanding process, frankly. The reality is that such offenders are on parole for life. Even if they are ultimately granted parole through this process, they remain on parole for life.

It might be important at some stage to review the functioning of this faint hope clause and the process of judicial review. I think that is far different from the context of a bill that starts from a point that says this process should not continue, that it should be eliminated and repealed. I cannot support that kind of approach.

It is important to look at the statistics in how this process has unfolded. We have statistics from 1987 to 2009. In that period, 991 prisoners were in the category of having committed murder or high treason and were sentenced to life in prison. That is the group of people who are eligible to apply for consideration in this process.

One hundred and seventy-four decisions were made by the court to engage this process. It is a very small number. It is certainly not a majority. In fact, the vast majority of prisoners do not even apply to engage this process, because they realize there is no reason for it to succeed.

In the 174 cases where the judge decided that the process could continue, only 144 of them were ultimately granted reductions. Even then the jury further reduced the number of people who could be considered. Furthermore, the National Parole Board only granted parole in 131 of those cases. One can see that at every stage of this process it is fully engaged and decisions are carefully made.

Of the 131 folks who did get early parole as a result of this process, 83 are on full parole and 18 are on day parole, meaning that they return to an institution at some point during the day. Three were deported. One was temporarily detained. Twenty-six are currently incarcerated. Twelve are deceased. One is on bail.

It is very important to look at those 26 who are still incarcerated and to point out that only four of those incarcerations, as far as I can determine, are the result of reoffences and further criminal activity. None of them is the result of murder. It is very important to realize that none of these people have reoffended in the same way that they did when they were originally convicted. That shows the great success of this program.

Of the four who reoffended, three were related to drug crimes. One was a very serious drug crime. One of the four who reoffended was related to armed robbery, which again is a very serious issue.

This shows the success of this program. It shows that compassion has a place in this process. It shows that we have to honour the rehabilitation process and say that when it is working, there should be positive consequences for that. People who demonstrate they can change their lives while incarcerated in Canada should have this option.

We also want to make sure that this process is fair to the victims of those crimes. As someone who had a close friend who was murdered, I want to make sure that victims are treated fairly and supported through this kind of process. However, I do not believe that means eliminating the possibility of engaging this process. It has served us very well. It has benefited the community, because people who are in prison are a burden to society. If someone can be a contributing and successful member of society, that is an important factor to consider. It is something we should be engaging every time that is possible.

This process has the necessary checks and balances to make it a very successful program. This is very ill-advised legislation and I will make arguments very strenuously against it.

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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the members of the House for agreeing to that.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, which deals with the faint-hope clause. The faint-hope clause is called that for a very good reason. When we read the process that an offender, someone who is incarcerated, must go through in order to apply for the faint-hope clause, it is a very tough process.

I have been looking up the information on the justice department website. Quoting from the website, this is the process that an offender has to go through:

Upon application, the offender must first convince a justice they would have a reasonable prospect of success with a jury that must unanimously decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment the offender must serve without eligibility for parole. The offender must then convince the jury that they should have the right to make an early application for parole to the NPB. Finally, the offender must convince the NPB that they are unlikely to endanger public safety if released.

If parole is granted, the offender remains under supervision for their entire life unless parole is revoked, in which case the person would be returned to prison. Any breach of the offender’s parole conditions or a conviction for a new offence may also result in the return of that person to prison.

Just to the deal with the facts of what is before us, since 1997, and as of April 2009, there were 991 offenders who were deemed eligible to apply for such a judicial review that I just spoke about. Of those who were eligible, there were 174 court decisions in which 144 became eligible for earlier parole, and of these 144, 131 were granted parole. So I think we can see that the existing provision on the faint-hope clause is a very onerous one and rigorous in the tests that a person must establish in going through various judicial reviews and finally to the National Parole Board.

That is all for good reason, because we are talking about very serious crimes that have been committed. I would certainly echo the comments of my colleague from the Bloc who talked about our justice system overall. We do have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that our justice system is fair and balanced and that rehabilitation is certainly part of that.

I have to state that the NDP has very grave concerns about this bill as it seeks to eliminate the faint-hope clause, because we believe it will seriously undermine the fairness and the balance that we have in our judicial system. In fact, I find it quite ironic that just a few days ago in the press there were documents released from Library and Archives Canada dating back to 1976, secret cabinet documents that showed that the prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “objected strongly to the removal of this provision, [the faint-hope clause,] asserting that the proposed legislative package”—a product of various compromises to win public backing and to outflank the tough-on-crime Conservatives—“was already 'neanderthal' enough without adding to its repressive character”.

That is from a cabinet document in 1976. I guess not much has changed in that today here again we face a Conservative government that is all wrapped up in a very tough on crime agenda that is simply about catering to a very narrow base. Certainly within the NDP we take this very seriously. We have a responsibility to represent the whole system. We have a responsibility to speak out for that fairness and balance.

The faint hope clause might not be popular. There are obviously cases that one can draw on to show very grievous situations and very violent situations, but it is there as a faint hope on the basis that there are individuals who, because of time served and the fact that they have been rehabilitated, may be in a position where to release them early and to allow that gradual release back into society is actually something beneficial.

Here I would quote from the John Howard Society of Canada, from its “Presumptive Gradual Release” paper of 2007, which talks about this issue of the balance and what parole and early release is about. It says:

The research literature shows clearly, however, that those who are involved in good gradual release programs re-offend less frequently than those who are not involved in such programs. This is particularly true of higher-risk offenders.

In fact, it goes on to point out:

If well managed, programs of gradual release are the best method known to reduce recidivism. Failure to involve people in these programs places the community at greater risk and in so doing contravenes the purpose of the Act.

On the one hand, we are dealing here with the political optics that are put forward by the Conservative Party. It is just catering to this agenda of bringing in tougher and tougher laws and getting rid of the faint hope, without recognizing the damage that is being done to our judicial system.

We have to ensure that we have a judicial system that is fair and balanced, that also emphasizes rehabilitation. Otherwise, we are then sending people out onto the streets who will still be at great risk of reoffending. I think one thing we would agree on is that what we ultimately strive for is safety in our local communities. So what happens to these offenders is really important and cannot just be dismissed as a political campaign or a political talking point as we have seen over and over again with the bills that have been before us.

I know our caucus, the NDP caucus, has serious reservations about this bill. We believe the faint-hope clause is there for a purpose. It is something that is very hard to achieve but is there for those occasions where it is warranted and where a judicial review and a full process can show that in some circumstances there is good reason to allow limited early parole for a gradual reintegration into society, and that is something that serves the interests of society.

We are also very concerned about the rights of victims. Under the current process, there is a great deal of pressure put on families and victims in terms of the number of times they might have to appear if an application for a judicial review is applied for. So we will be bringing forward amendments to this bill, and our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, will be speaking later this day on some of the issues and concerns we have.

For the purposes of getting some of these amendments, we will allow this bill to go to committee. However, we have serious opposition to this bill in terms of what it stands for and what it would do to our justice system, and I think we should be able to speak honestly about this. Unfortunately, so much of this debate has now been dragged down to its lowest level of political messaging and a political ideological approach from the Conservative government. As New Democrats, we are not prepared to engage in that kind of politicization of our justice system. We are not prepared to undermine the balance that we strive for in our judicial system. So we find it very offensive that this kind of approach is being taken over and over again by the Conservative government.

In fact, it is kind of ironic that, on the one hand, we have a government that has brought in how many bills now? There are more than a dozen of these sort of boutique criminal justice amendment bills.

It is ironic that the Conservatives do that, on the one hand, and huff and puff, jump up and down, and make a big deal about it. Yet when they receive a court order to return someone like Mr. Abdelrazik, a specific court order ordering the government to abide by the law that has been laid down, they refuse to do so.

Even here today, the day before the decision comes to its full fruition, the government is still refusing that. Or we can look at things like the challenge on Insite in the downtown east side, where the government refuses to respect court decisions, or medical marijuana.

I find it incredibly ironic that, on the one hand, the Conservatives rush in with all these amendments, but on the other hand, they themselves think they are somehow above the law and can just ignore court decisions that are made.

In closing I would like to say that this bill, in its present form, is not acceptable to New Democrats. When it goes to committee, our justice critic will be seeking changes that we think will improve the situation for families and for victims. We know that discussion will take place at committee and we think we need to ensure that we maintain the fairness and balance we have in our justice system. We are not about to let the Conservative government begin to unravel that and create serious damage in our society.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-36, the serious time for the most serious crime act, the objective of which is to restrict the eligibility of persons found guilty of treason or murder to apply for early parole. First, I will review the history of the faint hope clause, before speaking about the current procedure governing it and the changes proposed by Bill C-36.

Bill C-36 would modify the faint hope system. In 1976 the death penalty was abolished and murders were reclassified as first or second degree murder. Both are punishable by life in prison, but have different parole ineligibility periods. For first degree murder, the murderer must have served at least 25 years of the sentence imposed. For second degree, he must have served at least 10 years of the sentence, except in the following cases: when it involves a murder or deliberate murder under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the period is automatically 25 years or when, given the nature of the offence, circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the offence or any recommendation of the jury, the judge sets a period of between 10 and 25 years.

The faint hope clause, which is now found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, was adopted in 1976 to permit those who had already served at least 15 years of a life sentence to apply for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period. It had three main purposes: to offer some hope for offenders who demonstrated significant capacity for rehabilitation, to motivate good conduct in prison, and to recognize that it was not in the public interest to continue incarcerating certain offenders beyond a 15-year period. These were the principles at the time.

Under the initial procedure, the offender had to submit an application to the chief justice of the province where the murder was committed, asking to reduce the parole ineligibility period imposed at sentencing. Next, the chief justice had to appoint a superior court judge who was assigned to form a jury of 12 citizens to hear the application. If two thirds of the jury members were in agreement, the period could be reduced. Upon the expiry of the new period, the offender could submit a parole application directly to the National Parole Board.

In 1997 there were major changes to the faint hope system. First, the procedure was changed to prevent multiple murderers from applying if one of the murders was committed after the date the bill came into force. Second, these changes required the chief justice to do a preliminary review and examine each case before forming a jury, so as to exclude applications that did not present a real possibility of success. Finally, these changes required a unanimous jury verdict for the period in question to be reduced.

In 1999, the Code was amended again by adding section 745.01, whereby a judge, when imposing sentence, is obliged to make a statement for the benefit of the victims’ family and relatives concerning the existence and nature of the faint hope clause.

There are three stages to the current faint hope procedure: the review by the judge, unanimous approval of the jury, and the application to the National Parole Board.

First, the requester must convince the chief justice, or a designated judge, in the province of the conviction that there is a real possibility that the application will succeed. If the requester fails and the judge does not prohibit the filing of a new application, he may file a new application after two years, unless the judge sets a longer period for doing so. Second, the requester must convince a jury of 12 citizens to decide, unanimously, to reduce the parole ineligibility period.

First of all, it must be determined whether the requester qualifies,and this decision rests with a judge. If the judge concludes there is no chance of the application being accepted, he denies the requester the right. If he allows this right, the offender must submit his application to a jury composed of 12 citizens.

The jury must be unanimous in deciding to authorize parole. If the jury refuses without prohibiting the presentation of a new application, another application may be submitted after two years or after a longer period set by the jury. If the jury accepts, however, it must set a new reduced period.

Third, at the end of the new period set by the jury, the requester may submit an application to the National Parole Board.

Let us look at the success rate for faint hope applications. As of April 9, 2009, of the 265 applications submitted, 140 requesters had obtained a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. The National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants, of whom 13 subsequently returned to prison, 3 had been deported, 11 died, one was out on bail, one was in temporary detention, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions.

At the present time, over 4,000 persons are serving life sentences in Canada. As of April 9, 2009, 1,001 prisoners were could apply for early parole eligibility. Of those, 459 had already served at least 15 years of their sentence and so could submit an application, and 542 had yet to reach the 15-year threshold but will be able to apply in the future. On average, it will be possible for 43 of these 1,001 offenders to file an application each year.

Bill C-36 proposes some changes. In short, it proposes two main amendments. First, it proposes to completely abolish, effective the day that the amendment comes into force, the right of all offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole. Thus, effective the day that the proposed legislation comes into force, the right of offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole would be completely done away with.

Second, the bill proposes tougher rules for such applications for all offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason before the day that the amendment comes into force, including those who are currently serving a sentence.

This restriction to which I refer would comprise four amendments to the present procedure. First, tougher selection criteria will apply for judicial review. From now on, offenders will have to convince a judge that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed.

Second, the minimum waiting period for re-application if an offender has been refused will be five years. That is, the present two year minimum would be raised to five years.

Third, there is a new five year waiting period before offenders may apply, if they have not done so within the new three month limitation.

Fourth, there is a new three month time limit, that is a window of opportunity of 90 days, during which offenders may apply or re-apply: after the date the amendment comes into effect for the 459 offenders currently eligible to apply; after 15 years for the 542 offenders who will become eligible to apply; after the newly extended five-year period for those who re-apply; and after five years for those who did not apply within the three month window.

What position will the Bloc Québécois take throughout the debate on this bill? Bill C-36 addresses the most serious crimes, such as premeditated murder, that have the biggest impact on victims and affect the population as a whole. These most serious crimes deserve the most serious punishment, so those found guilty can be put in jail for life. Lenient sentences and parole granted too soon—after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, for example—undermine the credibility of the legal system and reinforce the feeling that criminals get better treatment than victims. But the Bloc Québécois also believes that punishment should not be the only goal of the legal system, at the expense of reintegration and rehabilitation.

Parole, even for murderers, is an important part of their reintegration and rehabilitation process because sooner or later, they end up back in society. When they do, it is crucial for them to have benefited from suitable tools to help them return to society in a way that is safe for everyone.

Bill C-36, which focuses on parole, could have complex consequences on the reintegration and rehabilitation of certain criminals.

In an effort to address this issue, the Bloc Québécois will study Bill C-36 in committee even though we have some concerns about it at this point.

There are still some issues we need to discuss. Are the reasons the faint hope clause was created still valid? The faint hope clause, which allows murderers to apply for early parole, gives them a reason to behave well in prison. What would happen if the clause were eliminated? Would it put corrections officers in greater danger at the hands of people who have nothing left to lose?

Will Bill C-36 sound the knell for cases of successful rehabilitation? There are examples such as that of Michel Dunn. He is a lawyer who killed a colleague but benefited from the faint hope clause and became an in-reach worker helping criminals reintegrate into society. Will this now be a thing of the past? We must remember that he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for 20 years for murder. He behaved well. He was reintegrated and is now helping prisoners.

The Bloc expects to take advantage of the study to raise these questions and get answers that will help enlighten the debate. It is only then that we will take a final position.

The most serious crimes under the Criminal Code are likely to lead to a life sentence. In the case of some crimes, such as treason and murder, there is no other sentence but life in prison. That is the minimum sentence.

There are a number of categories of homicide—murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder is the most serious category of homicide. It is a premeditated act intended to kill or fatally wound or to commit an illegal act in the knowledge that it will cause death.

There are two types of murder—first degree murder and second degree murder. First degree murder is premeditated and wilful. It is planned, in other words.

Other types of murder are automatically categorized as first degree murder in the Criminal Code. This is the case with the murder of a police officer or a prison guard or when murders occur in a plane hijacking, sexual assault or a hostage taking.

With manslaughter, there is no intention to kill, but there is negligence. Firing a shot through a hedge without thinking there might be someone on the other side is an example.

The Criminal Code is clear. Whoever commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of a criminal act and shall be condemned to life in prison.

Only the period of time before an individual may be granted parole may vary according to whether it is first degree or second degree murder.

For manslaughter, the sentence is life in prison, but there is no minimum period of ineligibility for parole. The regular rules apply.

We must come back to what is called the faint hope clause. It is important to the current debate. In my backgrounder, we saw that there have been a number of amendments over the years. Eligibility for parole has been made harder to achieve. The Bloc has no problem with this approach. However, one of the reasons that criminals have access to parole is to reward their behaviour in prison, if you will. It is rather difficult to reward criminals. However, employees and corrections officers working with criminals need some support from the law for their actions.

One way of getting there is to encourage criminals to behave. Parole plays a role in this. We must ensure that criminals who want to be rehabilitated and who work hard, even in prison, to improve their lives have a hope of getting out because, in any event, they will be released some day.

Even if parole is abolished, these criminals will have served their 25 years some day and will re-enter society. We must ensure, therefore, that they are given the support and rehabilitation they need to become good citizens once they re-enter society.

That is the reality we are facing when we analyze Bill C-36 and that is why we must ask all the necessary questions and ensure that all the in-depth studies have been done.

I cited the case of Mr. Dunn, who was a murderer but was reintegrated very successfully. Parole enabled him to become a better citizen and return to society. He became a criminal justice social worker who helps to reintegrate other criminals. His is a fine example. Could a bill like this nullify all the effort and improvements criminals might make in prison? That is what we need to consider.

The tough on crime philosophy is not the Bloc’s philosophy or ideology, and it was not the philosophy our ancestors advocated over the years.

Why do we have a justice system with a judge and the possibility of a jury? It is in order to always find the best punishment for the crime that was committed. That is the result we want. When we try to replace it with minimum sentences and overturn the legal system our ancestors developed to produce the society we have today, we should really ask ourselves some questions.

Often we do things because they are politically easy. These are good decisions but the media are omnipresent. Sometimes they embellish events for their own purposes. It helps them sell newspapers and attract viewers for their newscasts. We must understand, though, that there is a need for balance and the justice system has always ensured this balance. That is what our ancestors wanted.

There are many other justice systems around the world, but they are not the one our ancestors chose. The government is trying to get rid of our system in which there are independent judges and juries made up of citizens who judge their peers. That is the system we have developed. I think we are heading off in the wrong direction every time we are tempted by events in the media to change the entire legal system by imposing minimum sentences and completely abolishing the parole system, without considering its benefits.

I asked an eminent colleague of mine, a criminal lawyer, whether he submitted requests for legislative changes to the government. Does the Bar do that? Sometimes it happens and reforms are made. Usually, though, it is politicians who decide for partisan reasons to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code in order to get some political peace.

Once again, that is dangerous for the democratic system we enjoy. The entire justice system is, in fact, part of our democratic system. The decision to supplant judges by including minimum sentences everywhere in the Criminal Code is motivated by media coverage of certain appalling cases. Often, we need to realize that the case focused on by the media is an extreme case.

The justice system obviously needs to strike a balance. It is for that reason that the symbol of justice is a set of scales. It is all about striking a balance. It is true that mistakes can be made sometimes.

Do we want the innocent to pay for a few mistakes that may have been made? The Bloc will always be completely opposed to that. That is not the type of society that our ancestors bequeathed to us. We are changing the course of history because, somewhere, some politicians decided that being tough on crime pays off. They looked at what is happening in the United States with the Republicans filling up jails to make citizens feel safer. The result is quite the opposite. There are more crimes committed per capita in the United States than in Canada. Quebec, which supports reintegration, has the lowest crime rate in North America. That is the reality.

The Bloc Québécois will act responsibly. With Bill C-36 it will try to adopt a balanced approach in order to have a justice system that lives up to our ancestors' vision.

The House resumed from June 12 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is very interested in the number of murderers who have or have not been paroled and in the number of murderers who have been convicted. It is not a question of numbers. The victims, not the numbers, should be the basis for the bill.

No matter which government presents a bill, the purpose is always to protect society, to protect families and above all to ensure that justice is not just shrugged off and that murderers who are supposed to be in jail are not now out in society.

That is why, whatever the bill, it is not just about numbers, and even if just one person benefits, that is fine. The victims or the victims' families must always benefit. The numbers are not important when it comes to voting for a bill. In voting for a bill we vote for a principle that we have identified and we promise to fix the problem, in this case the problem presented with Bill C-36. I would like to mention that it was in our program. We are pleased to have it in our program and we are fine with that.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-36, a bill to increase sentencing for the most serious crimes.

The Criminal Code amendments I am proposing have two objectives. First, with these amendments, those convicted of murder and high treason will no longer be able to apply for parole under the faint hope clause. Consequently, someone who commits such an offence on or after the day of coming into force of these Criminal Code amendments will no longer be able to apply for early parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence. These people will no longer be able to apply for early parole. In short, the faint hope clause will no longer apply to those convicted of high treason or murder.

As many members know, in Canadian prisons, a large number of those serving life sentences for murder have the right to apply under the faint hope clause or may be able to do so in the next few years. They will retain that right. Second, the amendments will also restrict the application procedure in order to set aside less deserving applications and to establish restrictions as to when and how many times an offender can submit an application under the faint hope clause.

These new restrictions will apply to offenders who are already serving a life sentence, those about to be sentenced to life imprisonment and those charged but not yet convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder or high treason. These restrictions will apply to such murderers as Paul Bernardo, if he were to attempt, after the new rules come into force, to make an application under the faint hope clause. People like Paul Bernardo will find it even more difficult to obtain an early parole and will have fewer opportunities to apply.

By proposing these changes to the Criminal Code in order to prevent anyone who commits a murder after the provisions take effect from applying for parole under the faint hope clause, and by tightening up the application procedure for those already in the system, we are acknowledging the suffering of the families and loved ones of murder victims.

These changes will save families the pain of attending multiple parole eligibility hearings and having to relive over and over again the intense emotions that are brought up by seeing the person who turned their lives upside down and took the life of someone close to them.

The changes we are proposing also take into account the concerns of Canadians, who are shocked to learn that, through the faint hope clause, the sentence given when a murderer is found guilty is not always the sentence he will serve. I would like to add that these changes show, once again, that this government is determined to protect Canadians by ensuring that the most dangerous criminals serve their full sentences.

As the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said last week outside the House, the proposed changes are another example of our government delivering on its commitment to strengthening Canada's criminal justice system and following through on our tackling crime agenda, by standing up for victims of crime, and putting the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.

I would like to talk about this in a little more detail, since I think it is important for members to have some background on these proposals.

As it stands, under the Criminal Code, anyone who is found guilty of high treason or murder in the first or second degree, must be sentenced to imprisonment for life with a long period before being eligible for parole. In the case of first-degree murder or high treason, an offender who is found guilty must serve 25 years before being eligible to apply to the National Parole Board for parole.

In the case of second-degree murder, the offender must serve 10 years of the sentence before applying for parole. However, there are two circumstances under which the ineligibility period may be extended. First, if an offender is found guilty of an offence under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the ineligibility period is 25 years, the same as for first-degree murder. Second, a sentencing judge who decides to increase the ineligibility period because of the murderer's character, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the offence or any recommendation of the jury may determine that the period is to end after 10 to 25 years of the sentence have been served.

Under the Criminal Code's faint hope clause, those who commit high treason or murder may apply for their parole ineligibility period to be reduced after serving 15 years of their sentence. Currently, applying is a three-stage process. Procedural changes proposed in Bill C-36 would modify each of those stages.

The three stages are as follows. First, the applicant presents an application to a superior court judge, who reviews the case, then decides whether the applicant can move on to the next stage. In the current system, if the judge finds that the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed, the judge authorizes the applicant to move on to the next stage.

Some courts have said that it is relatively easy for an applicant to meet the review criteria, so we are changing them to make it harder for offenders to meet the criteria. From now on, offenders will have to show that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed. This criterion will exclude the least deserving applicants. If an applicant's application is rejected at the first stage, he may re-apply two years later, unless the judge has imposed a longer waiting period. We will increase that waiting period to five years.

In other words, an offender who is not eligible for parole for 25 years, for example, will be able to submit only two applications under the faint hope clause: the first after serving 15 years and the second after serving 20 years. For comparison's sake, the faint hope clause now permits offenders to apply five times: after serving 15 years, 17 years, 19 years, 21 years and 23 years of a sentence.

Changing that timeframe from two years to five years will allow victims' families to predict when a hearing under the faint hope clause will be held. This change will also reduce the trauma that is often felt as a result of these hearings.

At the second stage of the current process under the faint hope clause, applicants whose request is granted at the first stage must convince a 12-member jury that they should be allowed to apply for early parole. When the jury unanimously approves an applicant's request, it must indicate when the offender can apply for early parole. If the jury rejects an applicant's request, he may apply again two years later, to a judge, unless the jury has specified a longer period of time. We will also increase that timeframe to five years.

Thus, after the period of time stipulated by the jury, an applicant whose request is approved may move on to the third stage, that is, applying to the National Parole Board for early parole.

Under the current legislation, offenders can apply for parole under the faint hope clause anytime after serving 15 years of their sentence. We will change that, making applications under the faint hope clause subject to a three-month time limit for filing. This means that offenders who are eligible to apply for parole under the faint hope clause must do so within three months of their eligibility date. If they fail to do so for whatever reason within the three-month timeframe, they must wait the full five years before they can apply.

As I mentioned earlier, the procedural changes I have just described, the strict eligibility requirements, the new three-month deadline for applying and the five-year waiting period will apply only to offenders already in the system. In other words, these changes will apply only to offenders who have committed murder, are arrested for murder or are convicted of murder before the amendments take effect. Offenders who commit murder after this bill comes into force will not be able to take advantage of the faint hope regime.

Since the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code is incorporated by reference in the National Defence Act, all the proposed changes I have just described will apply to members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of a serious offence under that act.

Before I conclude, I would like to remind the members of this House about the controversy that has swirled around the faint hope clause for a long time and that gave rise to the amendments proposed in Bill C-36.

Since the first application was made under this regime in 1987, Canadians have repeatedly made the point that the faint hope clause seems to allow people convicted of the most serious crimes to serve less time than they were sentenced to.

Ordinary Canadians have a hard time understanding how the most violent offenders—murderers—can get early parole, when the fundamental objectives of sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender from committing other offences and protect society by keeping convicted criminals off the streets.

In short, the existence of the faint hope regime and the apparent ease with which people convicted of the worst crimes imaginable can take advantage of it erode public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. They also undermine the government's commitment to enhance the safety and security of Canadians by keeping violent offenders in custody for longer periods.

Our government is taking action to deliver on its commitment to ensure that offenders who are found guilty of a crime serve a sentence that reflects the severity of that crime. Our government is also respecting its commitment to ensure there is truth in sentencing. Canadians will no longer wonder how a murderer who was supposed to be serving a sentence with a parole ineligibility period could be released early.

The issues related to sentencing are complex, and the current government believes they are very important. The proposed changes are necessary. Canadians have demanded that we make them. Many people believe that too often, offenders seem to fall through the cracks of the Canadian justice system without serving their full sentence. Canadians, myself included, think that the sentence imposed, including the applicable parole ineligibility period, should be served in full.

The approach set out in Bill C-36 will restore people's faith in our justice system. For years now, Canadians have been telling us that they want a strong criminal justice system. They want us to take decisive measures to fight the growing threat of violent crime by passing laws that will keep our communities safe. Our government has promised to tackle crime and improve safety, and we have kept that promise by proposing significant measures, such as the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

Recently, in Bill C-14, we proposed measures to fight organized crime. In Bill C-15, we proposed measures to apply mandatory minimum penalties to serious drug-related crimes. We are justifiably proud of these measures and the many other changes we have proposed. As we have said in the House, we are protecting the interests of Canadians who urged us to get tough on crime.

We are asking the members of the House to help us make our communities safer. We are asking for the support of members on both sides of the House to pass this legislative measure as quickly as possible. Let us focus on protecting Canadians and restoring their faith in the justice system by adopting the measures set out in Bill C-36, which will help to eliminate what many have called a loophole for those sentenced to life.

Bill C-36 would get rid of that loophole by striking a fair balance between respect for the law and respect for the rights of family members and victims. I urge all of my colleagues to support our proposed legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to not just the regular Thursday question about the business of the House for the next week, but indeed to respond to all the questions from my colleague across the way.

In the order that we will dealing with it, today we are debating a motion from the New Democratic Party, which has its supply day today.

Tomorrow we will continue, and hopefully conclude, the third reading stage of Bill C-6, product safety, followed by Bill C-36, the faint hope bill. The backup bill tomorrow will be Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Monday, June 15 and Friday, June 19, 2009 shall be allotted days.

On Monday, we will be introducing a bill regarding the Maa-nulth First Nations agreement. It is my intention, provided that I have an agreement from all the other parties, to call and complete that bill on Tuesday. On behalf of that first nation, I express my appreciation to all hon. members and all the parties in the House.

Next week, I will also call Bill C-26, auto theft, for report and third reading. My hope is that we will get that down the hall to get it dealt with at the Senate.

In addition to Bill C-26, we will also consider Bill C-36, the faint hope bill; Bill C-37, National Capital Act; Bill C-38, Nahanni; and Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure. All of these bills, as we know, are at second reading.

I am hoping that Bill S-4, identity theft, can be sent over from the Senate expeditiously. If and when it arrives, I will be seeking the cooperation of the opposition to try to expedite that bill in our Chamber.

I might add that despite the assurance of the hon. opposition House leader last week, after we had passed Bill C-33 at all stages, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families, I expected the Senate to quickly follow suit. Although sad, it is true that time is running out for some of these veterans and their families. They are waiting to receive these benefits. This bill is not controversial, but the delay of this bill by Liberal senators will become controversial very quickly.

Last week I also mentioned Bill C-29 in my Thursday reply, which the hon. member for Wascana mentioned a minute ago. That is the agricultural loans bill, which will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. Today the Liberal senators did not grant leave to even consider the bill, let alone agree to adopt it.

Another week has come and gone. I am not sure how the member for Wascana intends to return to farm families in Saskatchewan and explain why his senators in the other place are delaying the passage of Bill C-29.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government laid out the bills that in the government's view were important to Canadians.

Bill C-26 on auto theft has been at the justice committee for some time now. Bill C-34 went to the justice committee yesterday. I do not know how the committee does two bills at one time. Bill C-35 was introduced on June 1. It has not even started second reading and I am sure second reading will take up a lot of time. Bill C-36 was introduced on June 5 and will ultimately go to the justice committee.

Bill C-6 is here in the House at report stage and can commence. That would certainly be one piece of legislation. Bill C-31, the tobacco bill, went to committee on June 3. The committee needs to call witnesses. We will not see that bill before June 23. Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, is the last one on the list in terms of government importance, and it would appear the government has no intention whatsoever of calling this bill because of the difficulties.

What the government has not included is Bill C-8, which I think is very important.

It appears to me the government has selected priorities which in fact are not the priorities of Canadians and do not justify extended hours for no progress whatsoever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), except for Friday, June 12 and Friday, June 19, 2009, commencing on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 and concluding on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by stating what might be obvious to folks who watch the proceedings of Parliament closely. By and large, I would have to say that this session of Parliament has been quite amicable and cooperative. I appreciate the efforts by the opposition to help the government get its agenda through Parliament.

As I recently said at a fundraising event for the Children's Bridge Foundation, I was reflecting on this place and reflected that this truly is the house of the common people. I also reflected on that word “common”. I thought that during the time of a minority Parliament, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we have in common: the things that we share as legislators regardless of our partisan differences. Regardless of what it is we want to see for Canada, I do believe very sincerely that all legislators and parliamentarians have the best interests of the country at heart.

I think that it is important that we try to work on those things that we have in common. I believe that there have been many instances in the last five or six months in this place when we have done that. I want to begin my remarks by commending the opposition for oftentimes trying to look beyond partisan differences, look to what we have in common, and actually accomplish things for the people of Canada.

While I am pleased with the progress that we have made thus far, not only as a government but as a Parliament working collectively, there is much more that we can accomplish for Canadians. As I have been saying about this cooperative atmosphere that is sometimes prevalent here, I think that some people who watch the daily proceedings of the House of Commons would actually dispute that.

If one were to watch the 45-minute question period every day, one might be surprised to hear me say that we actually work cooperatively and quite well together. While question period serves an important purpose and is the main focus for the media, no acts are amended, no new laws are created, and no funds for important programs are approved during that period of time.

Today, for example, there are 285 minutes dedicated for government legislation and 60 minutes for private members' business. Lots of time and effort goes into these minutes each day. More importantly, they can also be productive minutes. Thus far this session, our House has passed some 25 bills, including Bill C-33, which restores war veterans allowances to Allied veterans and their families. This required all-party consent and we all agreed that this was in the best interests of not only our veterans but the country.

Bill C-14, our bill to fight organized crime, is currently before committee in the other place. Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill, will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. This is all important legislation that we worked together on to further it along the parliamentary agenda.

Our Standing Orders include a specific provision for the extension of sitting hours during the last two sitting weeks in June. In fact, I reflect on my 16 years in this place. It has often been a point of confusion when members, and especially rookie members, look at the calendar and see the last couple of weeks with asterisks beside the dates. They think that those weeks are disposable somehow, but they are not. They are that way because the government has the right to serve, without notice, the motion that I am moving today to extend hours and work into the evening.

At this point in my remarks, I also want to inject the fact that up until quite recently in parliamentary history, the House of Commons sat into the evening for debate almost every night. It has been a relatively new phenomenon that we do not have evening sittings. The only exceptions to that in the recent Parliaments have been for emergency debates or take note debates. Other than that, we do not usually sit in the evenings. It is quite a new phenomenon.

What I am moving today is not something unusual. These rules provide a mechanism to advance government business before members leave Ottawa to work in their constituencies over the summer.

We have a lot of important work to do before the House rises for the summer. After we subtract the three days for opposition supply days and the time for private members' business, we only have 33 hours and 45 minutes remaining to complete our government business before the House rises on the evening of June 23.

Extending the House sitting hours over the next two weeks would allow us to make progress on government bills, such as: Bill C-26, legislation to tackle property theft, which we expect to receive back from the justice committee this week; Bill C-34, the protecting victims from sexual offenders act, which would strengthen the national sex offender registry to provide the police with more effective tools to protect children from sexual predators; Bill C-35, the justice for victims of terrorism act; Bill C-36, which would repeal the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code so that criminals who commit first or second degree murder will no longer be able to apply for early parole; and Bill C-6, the consumer products safety bill, which was reported from committee yesterday. Adopting this bill would protect the health and safety of Canadians by allowing the recall of unsafe consumer products. I urge members to adopt that bill with the utmost speed when we call it for debate later this week.

Other bills we would like to make progress on include: Bill C-32, which cracks down on tobacco marketing aimed at youth, which received unanimous support at second reading and we hope that health committee can report the bill back shortly so that the House can consider its passage before the summer; and Bill C-23, the Colombia free trade bill.

While not unanimous, I am grateful for the support of most members opposite in enabling the House to pass Bill C-24, the Peru free trade bill. Both Bill C-24 and Bill C-23 would expand market access for Canadian companies at a difficult time. I inject that this is especially important to our farmers who will have new marketing opportunities open up for them because of these two free trade bills.

This is just some of the important work to be done on our government's commitments. It does not take into account additional new legislation that we continue to introduce every week.

I notice the justice minister is sitting here and nodding as I relay a number of justice bills. The Minister of Justice has been extremely active in bringing forward a succession of important justice reforms. This is one of the reasons that I ran for Parliament 16 years ago. I know many legislators on both sides of the House hold near and dear to their hearts the importance of protecting victims and their families and of reforming and changing the justice system in our country to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions.

My intent regarding this period of extension would be, and I have discussed this with the opposition House leaders and whips, to set a goal each day as to what we wanted to accomplish. When we accomplished that goal, we would adjourn for the day. Even though the motion says that we would sit until 10 o'clock Monday to Thursday, it may not be necessary to sit until 10. We could work co-operatively and collectively together. If we actually achieved our goals that day at 7 o'clock or 7:20 p.m., we would see the clock at 10 and the House would rise. I think that is reasonable.

I am asking for a simple management tool to maximize our progress with the weeks that are left, a little over two weeks. I am not asking for a shortcut. I am not asking to curtail debate. I am proposing that we work a little harder to get the job done. As I said, I believe I am making a reasonable approach of adjourning each day after we meet modest goals. All parties would agree to these goals. This is not a blank cheque. I cannot adjourn the House without support from the opposition, nor can I prevent an adjournment motion from being adopted without opposition support. The motion has co-operation built right into it.

Sitting late in June is part of the normal process, as I referred to earlier. It is one of the procedures required to make Parliament work and be more efficient. According to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons:

Although this Standing Order dates back only to 1982, it reflects a long-standing practice which, in its variations, has existed since Confederation. The practice has meant that in virtually every session since 1867, in the days leading up to prorogation or, more recently, to the summer adjournment, the House has arranged for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance the business still pending.

A motion pursuant to Standing Order 27 has only been refused once and that was last year. Even under the minority government of Paul Martin, the motion had sufficient opposition support to be adopted. There is bound to be some business that one opposition party wants to avoid, but generally there should be enough interest on the part of the opposition to get legislation passed before the summer recess.

The House leader of the official opposition is often on his feet after question period trying to get speedy passage to some of our justice bills. Here is a chance for him, and collectively Parliament, to actually get that done.

The NDP members complain that we accuse them of delaying legislation when all they want to do, or so they say, is put up a few more speakers to a bill. Here again we are giving them the opportunity to do exactly that.

I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours so that we can complete work on important bills which will address the concerns of Canadians before we adjourn for the summer.

Criminal Code

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)