Bill S-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act

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. It also amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have enough time to answer that question, but I can say one thing for certain.

We can see an example of how this type of principle is working close to home, just south of the border in the United States. In less than 25 years, with this type of policy and this type of attitude, the United States has become the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. incarceration rate is somewhere around 730 per 100,000 inhabitants, while in Canada and most western European countries, rates range from 65—I think—in the Netherlands to 130 in Great Britain. Nevertheless, it is always around 100, give or take. That is a big difference.

Is the United States seven times safer than Canada? Quite the contrary and never mind the human cost. Someone who is rehabilitated becomes an asset to society. We can cite many an example. What is more, according to religious principles—I am no longer practising and I wonder whether I am agnostic—I see that every religion teaches the benefits of forgiveness. They recognize that people are not perfect, that they will commit sins, crimes, but when they do, we must try to rehabilitate them and put them back on the right path. That is not what we have here. The Conservatives are fixated on being tough on crime in order to please the masses.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the faint hope clause has been very controversial for a long time. There are many cases where people would say clearly that they do not want to see a particular person out of prison, but eventually people have to get out of prison.

I want to ask the member how the faint hope clause fits into the whole concept of parole. Eventually, when people demonstrate they are no longer a danger to society, we still have a system of parole. It seems that the faint hope clause is simply an extension of the parole system.

Is the bill undermining the foundations of parole in Canada?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right to point this out. It is part of a set of principles whereby when someone enters prison for a certain period of time, not only are they kept in prison, but they are also offered programs to help them be better people when they get out. This information is given to the National Parole Board which, when the person has made sufficient progress, may agree to early parole. In any event, in the case of murder for which the minimum sentence is currently life imprisonment, this person remains under the jurisdiction of the National Parole Board until their death. They are monitored continually. They are not completely free. They are released with conditions. Experience shows that those cases in particular have been very successful.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Conservatives want us to believe that murderers are lined up to get out after 15 years. In fact, as has been pointed out, less than 25% even apply under the faint hope clause and very few actually get out. In Canada the average time in jail is 28.5 years, not the 25 years that is commonly thought of. The faint hope clause does what it is supposed to do. It encourages good behaviour in the prisons.

We only have to look at the best practices of other countries to see how much time is spent in jail. In 1999 an international comparison was done on the average time served in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder. It showed that the average time served in Canada was 28.4 years, greater than all the countries surveyed. In New Zealand the average 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 it was 18.5 years.

I would think these would be countries with which we would want to compare favourably. They are not countries that we look down on the world as having systems that are extremely different than ours. They are our peers.

If these countries are all considered best practices, then why are we out of line with them?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had his notes.

What the previous speaker said is quite right. I spoke at length about other aspects, but I would now like to add that the homicide rate in Canada has fallen steadily over the past 30 years. I am certain that my statement has taken more than half the general public by surprise.

The Conservatives use rhetoric because all they want is to win votes. They never mention this. Canada's murder rate is about one-third that of the U.S. If there is one American failure that is clear, it is certainly this blasted tendency to look like they are tough on crime, which has disastrous results.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is enough time for the hon. member from Jeanne-Le Ber to ask a brief question.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his eloquent speech, my colleague demonstrated the wisdom of the Bloc Québécois' position.

He also decried the Conservatives' grandstanding. I would like to add something to that and ask his opinion. The Conservatives have an increasingly ludicrous habit of giving their bills ridiculous titles such as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, Sébastien's Law or the Keeping Canadians Safe Act. The bill title has become a kind of political marketing tool instead of an objective description of the bill's scope, as is usually the case in the House.

Does my colleague feel that this demonstrates the Conservatives' grandstanding?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has 30 seconds to respond to the question.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, and I am looking into it. It is clear that the bills they are introducing have titles that serve as propaganda.

We will soon be looking at their proposed legislation to reduce opportunities for sentences that can be served in the community. They say they want to ensure that people convicted of violent and dangerous crimes cannot benefit from things like that. But the current law already states that a judge cannot give this type of sentence if it presents a threat to public safety.

[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.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave an excellent speech.

We can take a look at early interventions that will have the most profound impact upon the trajectory of individual lives. We know right now that what happens in the first five years of a person's life will have a profound impact on his or her life.

Subject a child to violent sexual abuse, improper nutrition, or improper parenting and the trajectory of that child's life will change significantly. Ensure that the child is in a loving, secure environment with proper nutrition, is subjected to a healthy environment, and that child will be the best that he or she can be.

Early learning head start programs have the most profound impact upon the trajectory of that child. When it comes to youth crime, an investment in early childhood intervention will actually decrease youth crime by 50%.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Does the member not think one of the most powerful things the federal government can do is work with the provinces to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast will have access to early childhood education?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a great question. We have touched on many other subjects today. He mentioned a 50% reduction in youth crime where there is an early childhood education component. It is of vital importance. We are now seeing the studies and data that prove to us the benefits of early childhood education, and I mean for the very youngest, even before a child is one year old. The trajectory dictates that with the right amount of education, a person will have a more fulsome and healthier life, and so on and so forth, as my colleague pointed out. The problem is that in this country right now we do not target the investment in this particular type of education.

What bothers me about this is that there is a satchel of money that is provided for day care, but that is not the point. The point is that the federal government does not say that it believes in early childhood education. It just gives a bit of cash and people can do with it as they may.

On the surface, it sounds like it is a wonderful thing that the government gives people money to do with as they want, but we also have to provide some of that money to people who are early childhood educators. They provide such an invaluable service. Since I am not an early childhood educator, I do not know the full benefits of what it is educators provide, but I can say they provide fantastic benefits and one of them is the reduction in crime that my hon. colleague spoke of.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a follow up to my colleague's response, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in neonates. The fact is it is entirely preventable.

The federal government believes that in matters of health, the province is the lead manager, and it is correct, but nothing precludes the federal government from using its convening power and its financial levers to work with the provinces to develop innovations in health care that would improve the health of our citizens. Because these problems are transboundary, nothing precludes the federal government from doing this. We desperately need this type of leadership to deal with problems like FASD.

If FASD is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in children, does my colleague not think it is crucially important for the federal government to use its power, work with the provinces and implement best practices?

I have worked in jails as a guard and as a physician. The average IQ of somebody with FASD is 67. How on earth are people with an IQ of 67 able to integrate, engage and be productive members of society? They cannot.

As a matter of humanity and being progressive in our country to deal with a fundamental issue that is so trying and difficult for those who work in the judicial system and the medical system, does my colleague not think that the federal government should work with the provinces to implement best practices in the prevention of FASD?

[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.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the debate has gone all the way from the faint hope clause to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, I want to ask the member a question about that. Indeed, we are all concerned about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. However, recent evidence has shown that a simple folic acid supplement helps to reduce the methanol content that is also in the alcohol products, which seems to be the main problem contributing to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Would the member therefore recommend that Canadians at risk and people in communities where they are at risk take a folic acid supplement to mitigate that risk and to help prevent that syndrome from happening in the first place?