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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to help the government here, but the truth of the matter is if we are to reinstate the bill and try to describe what it bill would actually do, we should call it the “eliminate the faint hope clause in 15 years”.

While we are at it, when the member stood to ask me a question, and I know he is very well informed, I thought he would at least tell me why the Conservative government of Joe Clark started sending pension cheques to Clifford Olson and other convicted criminals back in 1979. I am waiting for an answer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I want to draw to the attention of the member for Elmwood—Transcona that there is nothing in the bill or the amendments before the House that have to do with pension cheques going to prisoners. Because we are at report stage, dealing with the amendments, I would ask members to bear that in mind when it comes to the rules of relevance on debate.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised and perplexed that the member for Elmwood—Transcona supports the amendment that would require Correctional Service Canada to notify the families of victims when offenders have decided not to bring a faint hope application.

The practical considerations aside, because he is right, this is 15 years down the road and some of these people may not exist or their whereabouts may not be known. However, the more practical reality is many of them do not want anymore involvement. Many of them, in fact I would suggest most of them, want closure.

Would he not agree that for those families of victims that want no further involvement, this requisite of notification would be counterintuitive for the whole purpose and would re-victimizes them for no apparent purpose?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the jury is still out on whether they like it or not. I do not think he has done the absolute ultimate in studies on that point.

However, while he is consulting with the families of victims on this point, maybe he should ask them what they think of his idea to phase in the bill in 15 years. I am sure that will make them happy.

While he is at it, would he please give us the answer as to why the Conservative government, in 1976, started sending—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I just mentioned to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona that is irrelevant to the bill before the House at this stage.

There is enough time for one more brief question and comment, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked that I perhaps apologize for former Prime Minister Joe Clark. I in fact recognize that Joe Clark was not the prime minister in 1976. It was Pierre Trudeau at that time. However, for what it is worth, if such a change was made by Joe Clark, I disagree with it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think we will move on with resuming debate.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the faint hope clause a number of times over the years as it has come forward.

As members know, Bill S-6 is an enactment that would amend 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 would also amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

We are specifically dealing with three report stage motions. The first one has to do with restoring the short title. The act may be cited as “serious time for the most serious crime act”. The issue of short titles has been a subject matter that has come up with regard to many bills.

At least 20 justice bills have been proposed. Many of them have been recycled a number of times through prorogation and other forms of restart. I think most hon. members who have participated actively in the justice committee and justice issues within the House would admit, very clearly, that instead of 15 to 20 bills, these bills could have been done in three, maybe four bills to handle them all.

The reason they are not being done quickly is because the government really has no intention of passing a lot of the bills. It has the intention to continue to recycle bills and to continue to use them to support a political slogan. The political slogan is it is “getting tough on crime”. It will not pass any bills to do that, but it wants Canadians to know it has a lot of bills and it should prove to them that there is intent to be tough on crime.

Getting tough on crime means the Conservatives better have an agenda and they need to have deliverables. There have not been deliverables. Probably the most contentious thing they are prepared to deal with is the short title of a bill, which is basically intended to give the courts an efficient way to refer to specific law in Canada without having to read an extensive title, which may be more comprehensive and is necessary with regard to a bill.

The short title is sometimes appropriate. In the government's case, the short title is usually longer than the long title and it will continue to play with that, with slogans and the like.

The bill is a very good example of why the Conservatives do not get it with regard to the whole issue of how we deal with people who commit crime. I took a couple of law courses. I have spent a lot of time observing, listening and learning over the last 17 years about how we deal with criminal justice issues. I have learned a fair bit about the importance of it, and the realms of punishment is part of the equation. That means appropriate sentencing for people who commit wrongdoing.

There is also rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is very important because the vast majority of people who commit crimes will eventually be returned to society. There has to be a rehabilitative component in the criminal justice system to ensure we deal with people who have had problems to try to help them to understand the problems. After rehabilitation and it is time to get out, there is the reintegration part and there has to be supports.

The most important part of the whole situation that government members do not seem to want to talk about is the prevention of crime.

When I became a member of Parliament, one of the first things I wanted was to be on the health committee because there was a health crisis in Canada. I remember Health Canada coming before the committee. It said that it spent 75% of health dollars on fixing problems and only 25% on prevention. Its conclusion was that was not a sustainable system.

I submit, similarly, that simply concentrating on the punishment of people who commit crimes in the absence of a commitment to rehabilitation once people are institutionalized and to ensure they are ready for reintegration into society is important, but the prevention aspect also exists. I cannot think of too many bills that are directly related to crime prevention.

The speeches of the members do not explain the sources or root causes of crime, such as the issues of poverty and family breakdown, addictions and mental health. I spent a lot of time in my career on fetal alcohol syndrome, now called fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We are told that 50% of people in Canada's jails, both federally and provincially, suffer from alcohol-related birth defects or other alcohol-related impacts and rehabilitation is not possible.

In fact, incarceration is not possible for them because there is no rehabilitation for a mental health problem. It is a permanent problem. We need institutions dedicated to helping people learn how to cope with their problems and deal with the wrongs they have committed.

I would much prefer to hear a little more about all the elements of crime prevention, rehabilitation, punishment and reintegration.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga South will have three minutes left to conclude is his remarks the next time the bill is before the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

(The House resumed at 12:00)

The House resumed from December 10 consideration of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I have only 10 minutes and we are at the amendment stage, I will address that particular topic right away. The government proposed three amendments and I would like to set the record straight once and for all: we will be voting against those amendments, which would reinstate the short title. The government has a tendency to politicize things in these matters. The title of Bill S-6 begins with “An Act to amend the Criminal Code”. We have no problem with that. Where we do have a problem is with the short title: “Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act”. Clearly, we will vote against these amendments. Clearly, we will vote against Bill S-6. Clearly, this government has no direction and is using this bill to try to appeal to the public.

Bill S-6 pertains to the faint hope clause. I would remind those watching us that in 1976, Canada abolished the death penalty for those who commit the most appalling, most serious crime in the Criminal Code: murder. Under the Liberals, the bill that abolished the death penalty also introduced what is known as the faint hope clause. Here is what it is all about. After a certain amount of time, after serving between 15 and 17 years in prison, offenders have the right—I hope they will still have this right—to apply to the Superior Court for the district in which the original sentence was handed down to be granted the opportunity to appear before the parole board. I am saying all this because Bill S-6, a bill from the Senate, is just not right. It makes absolutely no sense.

The bill does not make sense and I hope the Liberals will wake up. I hope the Liberals will hear the truth and hear what is being said today and what will be said on this bill in the coming weeks, or months if necessary. In any event, this bill absolutely must not be passed. The faint hope clause, and I am quoting from the Library of Parliament:

...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.

I can understand where the Conservatives are coming from. They say they are in favour of protecting victims and that we absolutely must protect victims. They keep saying over and over again that we absolutely must protect victims.

Therein lies the problem because the faint hope clause is working quite well. I hope my Conservative friends will listen, I cannot help it if they do not, but we will repeat this ad nauseam in the coming months: as of October 10, 2010, because the death penalty was abolished, there were 4,774 inmates serving life sentences in Canada. Contrary to what our Conservative friends think, and I hope the Liberals will finally hear the truth, those convicted of and serving time for murder are not sentenced to 25 years in prison. That is not true. They are sentenced to life imprisonment—for the rest of their days. I know that the Conservatives will never listen and never understand that.

These individuals will remain in the custody of the Correctional Service of Canada for the rest of their days. I repeat: it goes without saying that, for the rest of their days, these individuals will remain in the custody of the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board

I only have five minutes for my speech and then there will be a five-minute period for questions, which I will be pleased to answer. I would like to provide some statistics. I did not make them up; they are from the Correctional Service of Canada. I asked the Conservatives to provide statistics to rebut the CSC data, but no one came up with any.

In Canada, there are 4,774 inmates serving life sentences. Of these, 1,508 were eligible for judicial review. The death penalty was abolished in 1976, and therefore we had to wait 15 to 17 years before the first hearing was held in 1987. Since then, 181 decisions have been made: 146 resulted in a reduction of the ineligibility period for parole, and 35 were refused. Proof that the system works lies in the fact that it protects the public and therefore the victims.

I will continue with the Correctional Service of Canada statistics: 144 inmates have now reached their revised eligibility dates and 135 have been released. Half of those released, or 68 inmates, have not posed a problem; they have reintegrated into society and been rehabilitated. Thirty-five had their parole suspended, but not revoked. They had minor breaches of conditions, such as returning home at midnight instead of 10 p.m. The rules are very strict and the National Parole Board monitors them very closely. Thus, 23 had their parole suspended, but afterwards things went smoothly. Only 23 of the possible 4,000 inmates had their parole revoked. Only 2 of those 23 out of the 4,000 were convicted of other violent crimes, such as aggravated assault or assault with a weapon, but not murder.

So the system is working well. I do not understand the decision of this side of the House, the Liberal side. The Liberals are the ones who introduced the faint hope clause in 1976 after they abolished the death penalty. And it has been working so well that even the farthest-right, right-wing Conservatives are unable to provide us with any statistics to show that murders have been committed by parolees. This has not happened since 1987. The murderers who have been released from prison have all respected the conditions of their parole.

I know that we are at the report and amendments stage, but I will come back to this later. I will certainly have the opportunity to rise in the House again and speak out against the cheap populist approach that the Conservatives are taking with this bill. It is a cheap populist approach to say that anyone can be released on parole when such is not the case. The organizations that are currently taking very good care of the public and victims are the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada. They manage to keep criminals who are not ready to return to society from doing so.

I will gladly answer any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague from the Bloc that as we took the evidence at the justice committee it seemed to me very clear. I do not think that anybody who is objective about the evidence we heard could deny that the faint hope clause and the system we built up under it, in terms of how one is able to apply for and get that result, has been as successful as any program in our correction services, bar none. The rate of recidivism is the lowest of any program we have.

I know my colleague from the Bloc has practised criminal law for an extended period of time before being elected selected to this House.

Does he feel there is a better system than the faint hope system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for his comments and question, as well as for the work he does on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In my opinion, there is no better system. It is the best system.

Even though this system works well, the Conservatives are getting ready to increase violence in prisons and take all hope away from inmates with this bill. They are going to take away all hope of returning to society. There are 135 former inmates who have been released under this system and today are functioning members of society. I even know some who are doctors. I argued such cases. These people returned to society and are now doctors. Yes, they committed murder, the worst crime a person can commit, but they came back into society after spending 17 years in prison.

With the Liberals' support, the Conservatives are getting ready to destroy a system that works very well. I hope the Liberals will think again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder how much the public really knows or understands about this whole issue about the faint hope clause. Does the public really understand that in 1997 the Liberal government changed the law to eliminate faint hope clause applications for multiple murderers so that it would never apply to multiple murderers like Clifford Olson, who are in prison right now?

Does the member think the public also understands that the changes the government is bringing in, in this bill, would not take effect for 15 years?

In actual fact, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors here. The government is trying to present to the public that it is tough on crime, that it has eliminated the faint hope clause, which, as I said, had already been eliminated for multiple murderers in 1997, and the faint hope clause elimination for individual murderers would not actually be applied in Canada for 15 years, long after most of us would be gone from this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. This bill will not prevent Clifford Olson from applying and saying that he has the right to do so. It will not change anything. With this bill, the government would have us believe that it is being tough on crime, but the bill solves nothing.

If only this bill at least addressed some issues. I can understand the minimum sentences the Conservatives are calling for. They are playing politics. But Bill S-6 not only fixes nothing; it will create problems in our prisons.

If the member for Beauce listened carefully—God knows he should listen so he can talk to his colleagues, instead of plugging his ears—he would understand. I hope he will be able to tell his colleagues that Bill S-6 solves nothing. The Conservatives are going to create problems in very short order, because when an inmate realizes that he has no more hope and no chance of returning to society, he is going to go to work for the worst of the worst in prison. So there will be big trouble in the coming years.