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.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the government announced that it would not renew the funding after either March 1 or April 1 for three anti-gang programs that it had set up across the country approximately three years ago.

We have a government that decided to set up three anti-gang programs at multiple locations across the country to keep young people away from gangs and away from crime and then, after three years, it wants to cut their funding completely and shut these programs down when the programs, evidently, have shown to have benefits and are solid programs. That is not an example of a government that is smart on crime, in any sense of the word.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona has been very articulate and outstanding in this Parliament in pointing out the differences and the contradictions between what the Conservatives say and what they actually do.

Here we have a situation where there have been massive cutbacks in crime prevention programs and massive cutbacks in addiction programs. In short, there have been massive cutbacks in every sector that actually works to reduce crime.

Given the Conservatives' track record and given all these things that they have cut back on that actually helped to bring the crime rate down, does the member not think that the real objective of the Conservative government is very juvenile partisan gamesmanship, that rather than actually doing the concrete things that reduce crime and that work in communities, they want to stoke some kind of political fire to obtain some kind of cheap partisan political advantage from what they should be taking seriously?

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

Mr. Speaker, we need look no further than the prison farm program. We had six prison farms in this country for many years in Kingston and in Winnipeg where prisoners would get up at six in the morning and work with animals producing milk and other farm commodities. The government just shut down the farms when it should have been doubling them, taking the number of farms from six to twelve, or maybe even more, and expanding them. However, it shut them down at cost to the economy for the farmers around Kingston who used the abattoir in Kingston. There are dairy herds in Winnipeg and in Kingston that have been sold off. The land is being sold off. When I tell Conservative voters what the current government has done to the prison farms, they shake their heads.

This is an issue that even the government's own supporters cannot understand. The Conservatives are basically looking to the next election. Their whole vision is to lurch from crisis to crisis and to wonder how the issue will look in a focus group and how it will help them in the next election to get a majority government. They want to forget about the long-term consequences and the long-term costs that have been clearly demonstrated in the United States and recently commented on by Newt Gingrich.

They want to spend $9 billion to develop prisons to house prisoners when they say that the crime rate is actually dropping and then there will be the ongoing costs of keeping these prisoners, which, as the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River pointed out, is about $300,000 a year per prisoner, when they should continue to fund the anti-gang programs that they started three years ago. They should also have addiction programs and rehabilitative programs. They should actually start following Newt Gingrich, to be honest, to achieve results.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. Earlier in the day, the member for Halifax and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh spoke to the bill.

It is interesting to note that the Conservatives cannot even rise in the House to defend the bill. The criticisms that have been brought on Bill S-6 have been so sharp and so clear that they do not have answers. The justice minister made his little partisan attempt earlier this afternoon, but it is very clear that the Conservatives know they do not have very much substance backing up the bill.

To start, we need to talk about what the history has been around Bill S-6. This is now the umpteenth time in the House of Commons that we are negotiating the same bill and having these discussions and debates around it.

Why has the bill come back yet again? As we well know, it is for one simple reason. What the government has done systematically with its justice legislation, some of which was good but mostly bad, is every time it moves in the House of Commons, it moves to prorogue the House of Commons and then starts the bills over again. Then the Conservatives have the audacity to come into the House and say something about the opposition not agreeing with or slowing down their agenda. What we have seen every time is the Conservative government stopping the Conservative agenda. For the umpteenth time now the bill is back.

In the cost of debates, prorogations and bringing this back, countless dollars in taxpayer money have been spent on the bill. It begs the question of why the Conservatives are bringing this forward so often every time they prorogue Parliament. It is a despicable act, given the importance of moving forward as a country and as a democratic government moving forward, having debates, deciding which legislation is good and which legislation is bad. That is an extremely important role in democracy.

As we well know, we see countries in North Africa where people literally die trying to obtain that quest for democracy, that desire to have what we have here. The forum for democratic debate is absolutely essential.

We have a democratically elected Parliament that is systematically prorogued by the government and a prime minister who tends to treat Parliament as his own personal play thing. Therefore, the government has brought the bill back.

When we look at the due regard of the impact of the Bill S-6, we have to look no further than the testimony of Don Head, Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 16, 2010. This testimony is freely available to every member of Parliament to look at the actual impact of the bill that the government keeps stubbornly bringing back.

On November 16, Mr. Head said, “Historically, since the first judicial review hearing in 1987, there have been a total of 181 court decisions”. Therefore, over the last 25 years, there have been 181 court decisions. This bill would obviously have an impact on that.

He went on to say:

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.

Over the last quarter century, out of the hundreds of persons who might have been eligible, as we work through the process, we find that many of them were rejected, some were granted parole and some, for parole violations, had their parole revoked. Only seven reoffended in a non-violent manner. Two reoffended violently.

I will finish the quotation from Mr. Head because it is very relevant to Bill S-6 and what has been brought forward today. He said:

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.

This is a very important preamble to the debate we are having today. We are talking about the government being concerned about violations over a period of a quarter century that resulted in exactly one assault and one robbery. There is an inordinate amount of time brought forward on the bill for an issue that has essentially resulted in one assault and one robbery. While we deplore the assault and robbery on those victims, the reality is the other actions of the government have had a manifold negative impact on increasing crime rates far beyond the characteristics of the bill.

Let us take a moment and look at what the government has done since it has been in power.

We are talking about Bill S-6 and the net impact, if it had not been so poorly drafted. As usual, the government, as we have certainly seen in trade policy, most recently with the softwood lumber sell-out, did not do its due diligence. Softwood lumber communities across the country paid the price with another $60 million fine levied a few days ago and millions of dollars now in potential fines coming forward because the government simply did not do its work on the softwood lumber. The government has not done its work on Bill S-6 and even if it had, we are talking about an issue that over a quarter of a century resulted in one assault and one robbery.

As deplorable as those two acts were, the government's intent and actions in gutting crime prevention programs have had far worse of an impact.

Let us look at the impact of what the government has done since it came to power, the so-called anti-crime government. It has slashed crime prevention programs by more than half. It has gutted the programs that actually reduce the number of victims in society. Yet, instead of doing anything to increase crime prevention, which the NDP would support fully, the government has gutted those programs. The NDP has stood strongly in the House to say that this was fundamentally wrong.

Every dollar spent on crime prevention programs saves six dollars later on in policing costs, courts costs and prison costs. Why would the government not beef up the crime prevention funding? That is certainly what Canadians want to see.

On the crime prevention front, Canadians want to see lower crime rates and crime prevention investment taking place because it is cost effective and it means eliminating victims. There are no victims when the crime is prevented in the first place. The government slashed those programs and is now bringing in this legislation. It is trumpeting how effective it wants to be on crime when the impact, over a quarter of century, has been one robbery and one assault.

The government has cut back on addiction programs. I will come back a little later to what even Republicans in the United States are saying, and Newt Gingrich was quoted earlier. Republicans in the United States have come around to the fact that they have to beef up funding for addiction programs to bring down the crime rate. What has the Conservative government done? Exactly the opposite.

Just a few scant weeks before the government came to power, the NDP brought forward a private member's bill. I was in the House when that vote was held and there were police officers and firefighters in the gallery. The legislation was for a public safety officer compensation fund. Conservatives at the time voted for that legislation. Firefighters, police officers and their families were very happy with that.

As we know, in many parts of the country firefighters and police officers are not covered by provincial or municipal plans. There is no insurance, which means if they die in the line of duty, if they die protecting Canadians, their families get nothing. Their families have to sell their houses.

I have spoken with spouses of firefighters and police officers who have had to take on second and third jobs to try to keep a roof over their heads, whose kids have had to give up on schooling, kids whose parents, father or mother, a public safety officer, or a police officer or a firefighter, died in the line of duty and there was nothing to compensate the family.

In the United States every one of those public safety officer deaths is compensated. There is insurance so the family can keep a roof over their heads. Families can mourn and go on with their lives, at least knowing they do not have to work every day to keep the wolf of indebtedness away from the door.

The Conservative government, elected scant weeks after that legislation was adopted by Parliament, has for five years steadfastly refused to provide compensation to police officers and firefighters in our country. If there is another reason for Conservative supporters to be ashamed, it is this; that the Conservatives would show such reckless disregard and disrespect for our public safety officers, our police officers and firefighters, who die in the line of the duty. The government has done absolutely nothing. It is sickening and deplorable.

For the government to pretend that it is somehow on the side of police officers, it is the height of hypocrisy. It has done even more than that. Before the Conservatives came to government, they made commitments to put community police officers on the streets right across the country. They have had five long years and have had ample opportunity to take action. Rather than bringing bills like Bill S-6 forward, they could have taken action in this regard.

Community policing is the most effective anti-crime strategy possible. Couple that with effective crime prevention policies and addiction treatment programs, we would have an overall strategy that would be remarkably effective.

What have the Conservatives done? They did not keep their promise. As my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned a few moments ago, the government gutted the prison agricultural program, which was very effective in providing that transition for inmates back into civil society.

On the anti-crime front, the government has a lamentable and deplorable record. What it chooses to do is bring forward Bill S-6, after destroying the infrastructure that is providing for crime prevention and reducing the number of victims.

If the Conservatives continue to agitate for an election, putting those attack ads up across the country, wanting to go to an election right away, the only thing I would say is that given the Conservative record on crime, they better watch it. If the Conservatives want an election so eagerly, they will have to stand on their record. The Conservative record on crime prevention, the cutbacks to addiction programs, the disrespect for police officers and firefighters and the broken promises on providing community policing, is even worse than the previous Liberal government.

That is what the government has done on the crime front.

I want to mention a couple of other aspects that contrast vividly with Bill S-6, a bill that the government continues to bring back every time it prorogues the House because it says it is anti-crime.

Canadians are also aware of two other things that the Conservative government has done in the last few months. First, with respect to that murderous regime in Colombia, the secret police and the army, guilty of the deaths of dozens and dozens of people, labour activists, human rights advocates, the government chose to sign a preferential trade agreement. The government gave it preferential trade status. In other words, it whitewashed all the deaths. It did not in any way say that Colombia had to clean up its act and stop the secret police, the army and the paramilitaries from massacring civilians.

The Conservatives said that they would give Colombia a stamp of approval. It did not matter how many people were murdered, Canada would give Colombia a preferential trade agreement. It was absolutely despicable and hypocritical.

Across the length and breadth of this land, people see that difference. They do not see it as logical that a murder taking place in Colombia is all right and that the government is somehow being tough on crime in Canada.

Canadians are very principled people. Whether on the South Shore—St. Margarets, or in northern Alberta and Edmonton, they understand the distinction that a regime whose secret police and paramilitaries and militaries are guilty of murder should not be given a reward for having committed those crimes.

Then, of course, just a few months ago, we had this government bring forward other legislation. As we know, the IRS and the American state department have deplored the laundering of drug money in Panama by illegal drug gangs. What did the government do? Again, it gave Panama a stamp of approval and has put in place a trade agreement the NDP is sharply opposed to, allowing for more cover ups of the money laundering and tax evasion that takes place in Panama. There is no tax information agreement in place. The government requested it in a weak way. At this point in time, to put that trade agreement in place is fueling the laundering of dirty drug money in Panama today.

Here is the contradiction. After having prorogued a couple of times, this government comes forward yet again with this bill stating that it wants to be tough on crime. If we look through the statistics of the Correctional Service of Canada, we see that what it is actually talking about is one act of assault and one act of robbery over 25 years. Then we see what the government actually does. The government talks a good line; it does not walk its talk. What it does is to gut the programs that actually contribute to public safety.

Following me will be the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is going to talk about the youth gang program the Conservatives have just gutted again, yet another public safety program, yet another crime prevention program, which stops crimes before they are committed. And what does the government do? It stops it.

That brings us back to the fundamental question: why is this bill being brought forward? That is the crux of the debate here today. It is not about crime; it is about the partisan, juvenile posturing the government has become renowned for. After five years in power, it still has no opportunity to get a majority government. That is because of its juvenile posturing on these important issues. When we look at its fiscal management and its record deficit and the appallingly misspent or misallocated money, the tens of billions of dollars for corporate tax cuts, and at the economy and government's throwing away of 600,000 well paying full-time jobs and its replacement of them with 400,000 low paying part-time jobs, and it then coming into the House and saying, this is a triumph, these are the contradictions that Canadians see. Canadians do not like these contradictions and the inability of the government to walk the talk.

Then we get to the crime file and we see in case after case, whether it is rewarding bad or murderous regimes, cutting back on the prison farm program, not keeping its promise on community policing, not showing respect and providing support for families who have lost a police officer or a firefighter family member by providing for the public safety officers compensation fund this House voted on five and a half years ago, and then the cutbacks to crime prevention and youth gang programs, to addiction programs, all of which have an impact on reducing the crime rate, these are the contradictions that Canadians see more and more. These are the contradictions that Canadians deplore. Yet this government is revving its motors, putting on its attack ads and its smear campaign in full bore to go for an election right now. It is very clear that it wants an election: devil the people, devil the Canadians.

Conservatives are saying they do not want to get stuff done, that all they want to do is to have partisan attacks, smear campaigns and to run attack ads everywhere they can. But Canadians want something different. They want a real crime strategy, a smart on crime strategy that prevents crimes before they are committed. They want to make sure that the funding is in place for youth gang strategy, and they want an effective, smart on crime strategy that actually—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member. I had some difficulty following his train of thought. He jumped around a lot and he really used a lot of examples and analogies that had nothing to do with this particular piece of legislation, but I would ask a pretty straightforward question.

I have heard the hon. member talk a lot about what Canadians like or do not like, so I am assuming he has spoken to most Canadians on the issue of crime. However, the real issue here is that Canadians want to feel safe and secure in their homes, on the streets, in their workplaces. That is not an unreasonable thought, and it should not be foreign even to the NDP's mindset. However, the NDP does not support legislation that enforces that.

My question to the hon. member is, does he intend to support Conservative legislation that actually forces criminals to serve their time in prison, or not? It is a simple question, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say this to the member: What the NDP has been pushing for is the kinds of programs that reduce crime. If the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's thinks that Canadians support the Conservatives' gutting of crime prevention programs, I think he will have a rude awakening come this election the Conservatives are pushing for.

What Canadians want to see is crime prevention programs put into place. They want to see the Conservatives keep their promise for community policing. Canadians want to see the kinds of addiction programs that bring down the crime rate.

The Republicans in the United States are saying that the NDP is right on these crime issues, that what the Conservatives have done is a wrong approach, that they are wrong to cut back on crime prevention and addiction programs. If the Republicans in the United States can say the NDP has been right all along on a smart on crime strategy, I guess it begs the question, on what planet are the Conservatives if even Republicans can understand the simple concept that when we put crime strategies in place, we spend less money and we have fewer victims? I guess the question is, why are the Conservatives offside of every other civilized country and even their own right-wing parties in other countries, who have come to the realization that we have to put in place the supports and the crime prevention strategy before the crime happens?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier in the debate, the Conservatives have cut back on the summer employment programs for youth in my area of Windsor West, where they cut thousands of dollars. What that means is that more youth will not find employment.

We have an unemployment rate of 20%. I have worked directly with youth at risk. One of the most important things we can do is to ensure their training and schooling and that they actually have employment during the summer.

It is interesting, because this is the government that talks about its fiscal record, and just the other day, it spent another $650,000 on a vase made by an American.

We have to wonder about the priorities of the Conservatives when the people who are on the streets right now, the youth who are actually spending record amounts of money and getting into debt to go to school, have no opportunities. It is not only important that they actually make some money, but also that it keeps them out of trouble and gives them hope and opportunity. It is also important for the Canadian economy for productivity, because if they get into their field of study, they are getting experience and we are not losing them to the United States or other jurisdictions because there are no jobs and they have no experience.

I would like to ask the member for Burnaby—New Westminster about choices like these. In his riding, is he seeing the youth being left behind? Will that cause a problem in the future? I just cannot believe the government could buy a vase for $650,000, but does not have enough money for one of the regions with highest youth unemployment rate, my riding, which has 20% youth unemployment? Where are its priorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West is absolutely right. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was a financial administrator. As it is with most New Democrats, the way ordinary Canadians manage their households is by being careful to spend money on the essentials. That is why one wants to put a budget in the hands of ordinary Canadians to be managed best, not by the high-flying, elite Conservatives, and certainly not by what we saw from the Liberals in the past. It is simply a matter of making the crucial decision the way Canadian families do every day and putting the money into essentials.

A $650,000 vase is not an essential and nor is it a priority to have $2 billion for a 72-hour meeting, because the Prime Minister got carried away and decided to build fake lakes here and cover over other lakes there, and nor are the tens of billions of dollars shovelled out the back of a truck for corporate tax cuts.

That money is going offshore because the Conservatives have not even put any valuation mechanism in place for them to know whether the money is actually being used for job creation. That is why 600,000 full-time jobs were lost and we got back 400,000 part-time, low-paying jobs, and yet they say it is a wonderful thing. They lost 200,000 jobs generally and the quality of the jobs they have created is much poorer than the quality of the jobs they have lost.

What is essential is putting in place programs for youth. The member for Windsor West identified the record levels of student debt and that we need programs in place for youth to make sure they are given alternatives. What have the Conservatives done? The member for Vancouver Kingsway will address this in a moment as well, but they have gutted the youth gang strategy and crime prevention programs and the supports for our nation's youth. They are simply incapable of putting in place a strategy that is effective. It is all about partisan politics. If they really want the election they are pushing so badly for, I think their time of judgment by the Canadian public will come.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster not only in terms of investing in summer employment for youth but also the issue with regard to the cut in the gang file. Once again, Conservatives have money for a vase but no money for gang-related prevention work.

We have seen that being proactive and having police resources is a real advantage. Ironically, the government talked about how it was going to increase the number of police officers out on the street and never did so. It failed on that promise. Making sure it lives up to its promise of putting more police officers on the street has been very frustrating. At the same time, if they cannot do that, those funds could go to prevention. Gang projects are very important. Organized crime is a very serious issue. Why does the government not take organized crime seriously, as it says it does with its other types of initiatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. In fact, one could almost say that through the Conservatives' trade strategy they are fueling organized crime through the laundering of dirty drug money in Panama. They signed a reward cheque, a privileged trade agreement with Panama. It is the same situation in Colombia. The gangs there are affiliated with the government, and the government gets a reward from the Canadian government. It is absolutely appalling in both cases.

When we talk about youth employment strategies, anti-gang strategies and crime prevention, these are all priorities. They must priorities in the justice system. What is the government doing instead? Because it is so fiscally irresponsible, it is throwing away $9 billion for prisons that, according to the President of the Treasury Board, are being built so that people who commit unreported crimes can be put into jail. There have been enough jokes around the country about that idea, the phantom prisons, the prisons for unreported crime. It is absolutely absurd.

If the government spent a fraction of that money responsibly and prudently, the way Canadian families do, it would be putting that money into the programs the member for Windsor West just mentioned, the summer employment programs, the crime prevention programs and anti-youth gang strategies. Those are the prudent and smart investments that an NDP government, if it were the will of the Canadian people, would make. The Conservatives are simply a hollow shell as far as concrete and practical approaches on crime are concerned. That is becoming very evident from their actions over the last few months.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a warm welcome back to you and to all members of the House. I hope everyone had a chance to spend time with their families and communities over the last six weeks as we broke from our activities in the House in mid-December and are now back to resume the people's business here.

The reason I start off that way is because today is January 31. This is an important day because it is the very first day that parliamentarians have returned to the House of Commons here in Ottawa after the break. We have been away for over a month, back in our communities talking to our neighbours, community groups and organizations, meeting with business people, talking to our constituents and getting what I think all parliamentarians would agree, is a thorough exposure to the fundamental issues facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Here we are back in Parliament on January 31, the first day back, and we are debating the very first bill that the Conservative government has chosen to put before this chamber.

Over the last month and a half I have heard, as have my NDP colleagues, of the pressing and important issues facing Canadians across this country. New Democrats represent ridings from the east coast to the west coast, from the Canadian border on the south to the high Arctic. We heard the same serious priorities of Canadians.

Canadians tell us they are having problems housing themselves. They are worried about their pensions, many of whom have pensions that are in crisis. They are worried about health care. Our seniors are wondering how they are going to pay their bills and whether or not they will get access to home care. Parents are worried about the cost of education. Students are worried about how they are going to pay their skyrocketing tuition and their mounting student debts, that is if they can get into post-secondary education at all.

People are concerned about the disappearance of good middle-class jobs in this country. They are concerned about how they are going to raise their families in the same manner they were raised by their parents and grandparents before them

Families across this country are worried about child care and how they can get quality, affordable, accessible care for their children while they go to work and try to sustain their families.

Victims across this country are worried about how their needs are going to be met. People experienced with crime prevention issues are wondering where their funding will come from. Organizations across this country that deliver social needs for every gamut of issue in this country are wondering how they will survive.

What is the Conservatives' number one priority in the face of all of these priorities, in the face of all of these issues? They bring forward a bill that since 1987 affects 187 people. In the last 25 years, a quarter century, about 187 people have applied under the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code to have their life sentence commuted to 15 years because they have rehabilitated themselves. The government is taking up valuable legislative time in this chamber to get rid of that.

The government does not want to deal with housing, education or home care. It does not want to talk about crime prevention or community safety. It wants to go after people in prison to make sure that the tiny, minute, infinitesimal number of people affected by this legislation are stripped of any opportunity to rehabilitate themselves at all.

Governing is about choosing priorities. I do not think we are going to get a more stark reminder than this of what the Conservative government's priorities are and how incredibly divergent those priorities are from the very real priorities facing Canadians and their families today.

My hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster made several references to me speaking about the youth gang prevention fund. I am going to speak about that because it also reflects a sense of priorities.

The Conservative government stakes a lot of political weight on its reputation as being tough on crime. The Conservatives claim they are the party that stands up for victims of crime, that they want to make our communities safer. Let us examine a few facts about that.

The youth gang prevention fund is a program that is funded by the federal government. That funding goes to dozens of organizations across this country, with one goal in mind: to help keep youth out of gangs. In Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and many other communities, dozens of programs are being run on a shoestring budget to try to divert troubled kids and kids who are at risk from going into gangs and going into a life of crime. The amount of money that is invested in this program: $33 million over five years. That is about $6.5 million a year. Our research indicates that about 1,000 youth have been in these programs; that is, 1,000 people who are being exposed to positive role models and who are being identified and worked with to help keep them out of a life of crime. Those programs, I am told, are oversubscribed and full.

That funding runs out in March. What do we hear? That the Conservative government is going to allow that funding to lapse. It can spend, by its own admission, $2 billion to $4 billion on building more prison cells, and of course we all know that those costs are vastly underestimated. Probably a more likely amount is at least $10 billion will be spent by the government over the next five years for building more prison cells, but it will not spend $6 million a year to keep our youth out of prisons. That is a striking sense of the priorities of the Conservative government. It prefers to talk tough, to have show, to play politics and prefers to issue propaganda and go after programs that do not affect anybody across this country but a small amount of people to try to display its toughness while millions of people's real problems remain unaddressed.

While the government is bringing forward legislation on ending the faint hope clause, let us talk about what people and Canadians really want us to address, as parliamentarians, when it comes to crime.

First, they want their communities to be safe.

How do we do that? Do we think communities are safe by keeping 180 people over the last 25 years from applying for a faint hope provision? Absolutely not.

Canadians would tell us they want more community policing. They want more cops walking the beat in their neighbourhoods. Community policing means a police presence in our communities, where we have small neighbourhood police offices.

They want, in rural areas, access to RCMP detachments where, if they phone a 9-1-1 number, they can actually get a response in an appropriate amount of time; unlike what the government has done by closing and allowing the closure of single-member police RCMP detachments in British Columbia.

They want crime prevention programs. Canadians want better lighting in our streets. They want more prosecutors and judges in our courts so that we can actually speed up the administration of our justice system. They want more diversion programs, where people who come into conflict with the law get actual help for the problems that are really causing them to act in a deviant manner to begin with; more mental health programs, more addiction treatment.

We need an anti-gun strategy that would stop the inflow of illegal guns across the border into our country.

Canadians want us to understand and acknowledge the obvious, which is that we have to address the social determinants of crime, which the government has never said a word on in the time I have been in the House. I have never heard a single Conservative stand and say, “I think that poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of educational opportunities, lack of resources in our communities for our young people are the breeding grounds for crime and criminal activity in at least some cases”. I have never heard one Conservative say that. Conservatives are actually wrong about that, because the data displays that fact unbelievably.

We need more community facilities. Canadians want community centres, where they have recreational, cultural and social facilities where they can gather in their communities, particularly our young people, where they can come and play basketball, or they can learn a musical instrument, or they can take a language lesson, or they can pursue arts and cultural activities. These are the kind of enriched activities that our youth need to be exposed to, as opposed to being lured to perhaps illicit activities on the street.

But again, what do they get from the Conservative government? It brings forth legislation that would eliminate the faint hope provision from the Criminal Code. That is its response to those very real problems and concerns of Canadians.

Not only is that a factually unwise approach, but it is actually economically insane. We have already heard that no less figures than Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan, hardly left-wing liberals from the United States, have brought up examples from that bastion of left-wingism, Texas, and in the United States they are actually acknowledging what we New Democrats have been saying, year after year, which is that increasing spending on prisons, putting more people in prisons for longer periods of time under harsher conditions, not only does not reduce the crime rate but it bankrupts the treasury. They are actually withdrawing on that.

States, from Pennsylvania all the way to the Carolinas to Texas, are all actually putting more money into diversion programs and rehabilitation programs. They have found that half of the prisoners released in a year under the old programs are back in prison within three years. They recognize that what they are doing does not work. They are recognizing the approach they took over the last 25 years, having their prison population growing 13 times faster than the general population, by spending $68 billion in 2010 alone on corrections, 300% more than 25 years ago, has not done a darn thing for community safety except for bankrupting the taxpayer which is what the government will do if its policies continue going in the direction they are going.

Bill S-6, the faint hope clause, would, if passed, eliminate section 754.6 of the Criminal Code. This section allows for those serving a life sentence for murder or high treason the possibility of applying for parole after 15 years.

This faint hope provision was initially introduced in 1976, and the criteria for release and parole have been amended several times since. Presently the eligibility requirements are very stringent and include an appeal before a judge and jury, and unanimous approval of that jury before an appeal can even be heard by the National Parole Board.

According to the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head, as of October 10, 2010, there were 1,508 offenders with cases applicable for judicial review. Since the first judicial review hearing in 1987 began, there have been a total of 181 court decisions. That is right, in 25 years there have been 181 court decisions.

Of those decisions, 146 resulted in a reduction of the period that must be served before parole eligibility, and 35 resulted in a refusal. Why were those 146 decisions positive in terms of the application? It is because the system worked in those cases. The purpose of corrections is multifaceted. It is to remove a person from society. It is to punish them when they have transgressed against our rules of society. It is also to give them the services and functions that they require in order to attempt to rehabilitate themselves. That is what we want.

In some cases some of those people have taken that to heart, and some of those offenders have actually rehabilitated themselves. I am going to talk about why that is positive. When a person goes to prison in Canada, they are going to come out at some point. Just about everybody will anyway, 95% will. Of course people like Clifford Olson, Russell Williams and Mr. Pickton, in my home province, will never get out of prison nor should they.

There is a gamut of offences even under the conviction of murder. There could be crimes of passion, people who have committed crimes while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and crimes committed when people are very young. We believe, at least on this side of the House, in the power of redemption, that sometimes people can rehabilitate themselves and change themselves.

If that is the case, if people can correct themselves after serving long sentences—and nobody is talking about these people not serving long sentences. These are people serving 25-year sentences who after 15 years can apply and maybe have their parole eligibility reduced by a few years. Those people can change and the law recognizes that. In the Conservatives' simple world I suppose they would argue nobody changes, but that is false because people do change.

I have been to 25 federal institutions in this country in the last year and a half. Correctional officers will say that the faint hope clause helps maintain order and safety in prison because when hope is taken away from people in prison, they are left with absolutely no incentive to act appropriately. For some people that is important. Guards will say that they like the faint hope clause even for people serving life sentences because it gives them an incentive, a potential reward if they act appropriately, and the government wants to take that away.

Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Beware of those in whom the urge to punish is strong”. There is some wisdom in that. The government is playing politics with the crime agenda and Canadians are starting to have its number on this by the millions. They know that the government is pursuing U.S.-style politics and approaches to prison and crime that do not work, that will bankrupt us and that will not make our communities safer. That is the bottom line.

Seeing the priority of this bill before Parliament on the first day of the session illustrates that better than anything that I could say. Do the Conservatives bring a bill forward that would actually help victims of crime? Do they bring a bill forward that would actually build sexual assault centres for victims of sexual assault? Are they bringing forth bills that would actually build community centres that would give our youth hope? Are they funding education and making educational opportunities wider for our young people? Are they building mental health facilities and addiction treatment facilities so that we can deal with some of the most important underlying causes of criminal behaviour?

It has been estimated by all sources that 80% of people in our federal system have addictions or alcohol problems. Does the government address that problem? Does it say that it will put $100 million, $200 million or $300 million into mental health and addictions treatment? That would help make our communities safer. If people in prison got the kind of treatment they needed, when they get out they would be less likely to offend. Does the government bring forth that legislation? No, it does not.

Instead, it wants a showpiece. It wants to look like it is tough. By being tough, it wants to remove a faint hope clause that is a carefully considered part of our criminal justice system that was negotiated at a time when we abolished capital punishment.

Maybe that is what this is really about. We heard the Prime Minister muse about being in favour of capital punishment, but the Conservatives do not have the courage to bring that bill forward because they know Canadians would not support it. They know Canadians would reject any party that sought to bring in a system in this country where the state started murdering people.

What does the government do? It goes after people in prison by removing the faint hope provision, one of the few things that might give someone who committed a murder when he or she was young the possibility of perhaps redeeming his or her life, maybe making things right for the victim and living his or her life in the manner that we all would want the offender to live. That is atrocious. In fact, there are stronger words to describe people who would pursue that as a criminal justice agenda. I will leave it as being uninformed, mean-spirited, insufficient, deficient and it will be unsuccessful at making any Canadian's life any better.

I would urge the government, if it is serious about crime, to work with the New Democrats and all members of the House to bring forth legislation that would address the social determinants of crime, that would make our communities safer, that would help our young people and anyone who has any contact with the criminal justice system and to work with the professionals in this country to actually make a difference in people's lives.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that will happen if the bill continues and one of the things I am most concerned about is the lack of discretion, the discretion that will disappear in terms of judges and juries to make the kinds of decisions that they know they should be making. For me that is a real concern.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to make a comment about that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are seeing, as they see the government stay in power longer and longer, that it does not believe in judicial discretion. The Conservatives do not trust judges. They do not trust prosecutors. They do not trust our justice system. They are trying to dispense justice from the politicians box. That is not only despicable but actually extremely ineffective and dangerous for our justice system where we depend on having an independent judiciary, where politicians are supposed to set the rules, carefully deliberate and pass laws to keep everybody safe, to govern our relations between each other and then trust others who are independent of politics to dispense justice.

Outside of the Supreme Court of Canada building, which is just down the street, is a statue of the traditional symbol of justice. It is the goddess of justice with a blindfold on her eyes and a balance in her hand. That is to symbolize two very important things: that justice must be independent, it must be measured and it must be judicious. The government is not interested in that.

The New Democrats trust in our judicial system. We know there are hard-working prosecutors. We know there are learned, astute judges who are sensitive and sympathetic to the community standards and who are subjected to rigorous appeal and scrutiny in everything they do. They dispense justice every day in this country. However, the Conservatives do not trust those people at all and that is why they want to take away discretion from our judges.

The essence of any justice system is built on discretion, because if people in this country were before a judge, they would want that judge to be addressing his or her mind to their specific situation with their specific conditions and what happened in their case. That is the essence of justice. We would not want ourselves and our life determined by some arbitrary standard set by a bunch of politicians in Ottawa.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Has he, in his riding or on his travels, met with an individual who has had a loved one murdered and the murderer has gone through the judicial process a number of times to seek a hearing for early parole? If he has, did he actually listen to the individual?

I have person in my riding whose son was killed by Clifford Olson. He has talked to me a number of times about the incredible pain that he goes through for every one of these opportunities that this individuals takes knowing that he will never be successful but does it for all kinds of evil reasons, in my opinion.

I wonder if the hon. member has spoken personally to any of these people and what he thinks about what they have to say.