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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill S-6. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-6 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows:

“1. This Act may be cited as the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-6, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting the following after line 28 on page 3:

“(2.7) The 90-day time limits for the making of any application referred to in subsections (2.1) to (2.5) may be extended by the appropriate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, to a maximum of 180 days if the person, due to circumstances beyond their control, is unable to make an application within the 90-day time limit.

(2.7) If a person convicted of murder does not make an application under subsection (1) within the maximum time period allowed by this section, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, or his or her designate, shall immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse or common-law partner of the victim that the convicted person did not make an application. If it is not possible to notify one of the aforementioned relatives, then the notification shall be given to another relative of the victim. The notification shall specify the next date on which the convicted person will be eligible to make an application under subsection (1).”

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-6, in Clause 7, be amended

a) by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following:

“3(1), within 90 days after the end of two years”

(b) by replacing line 19 on page 6 with the following:

“amended by subsection 3(1), within 90 days”

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak to Bill S-6, the most serious time for the most serious crime act, now that it has been reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member.

This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to repeal the so-called faint hope clause or the faint hope regime for all future murderers and to tighten up the application procedure for those who have committed their crimes prior to this bill becoming law. Bill S-6 would achieve these goals in a balanced way, something that was recognized in the other place, where this bill was thoroughly and strongly examined and sent to the House without any amendments. However, I regret to say that the amendments adopted in the justice committee threaten to undermine the most important elements of Bill S-6 by reintroducing the very uncertainty that the bill was designed to overcome.

Before going on, I note that the punishment for high treason and murder is life imprisonment without parole eligibility, set in accordance with section 745 of the Criminal Code. Thankfully, as there is no one serving time in Canada for treason, I will confine the remainder of my remarks to the offence of murder.

As we know, there is an automatic 25-year parole ineligibility for first degree murder and for two categories of second degree murder. The period of ineligibility for parole for other categories of second degree murder is between 10 and 25 years, as determined by a sentencing judge and in accordance with section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Despite these clear provisions, the faint hope regime in section 745.6 and the related provisions permits convicted murderers to seek an earlier parole eligibility date than the one to which they were originally sentenced. Since its inception in 1976, the faint hope clause has been a continuing source of controversy and has certainly been the object of derision by many victim groups in this country.

The families and loved ones of murder victims are particularly affected as they often live in dread and uncertainty as to whether an offender will be bringing a faint hope application that will then force them to relive the tragic pain of their losses yet again. In recognition of such concerns, amendments were brought forward by a previous government in 1997 and 1999 to render post-1997 multiple murderers ineligible to apply for faint hope and to toughen the application procedures for all other murderers.

Bill S-6 would build on these earlier initiatives by effectively repealing the right of all future murderers to apply for faint hope and by further toughening the application procedure. This is important. Barring future murderers from applying for faint hope would not only benefit the families and loved ones of victims but also protect society by keeping offenders in prison for the full time to which they are sentenced. What could be more reasonable than that?

As all hon. members will recall from past debates, the current application process has three stages: first, judicial screening to determine if an applicant has a reasonable prospect of success; second, a unanimous decision by a jury to reduce the applicant's parole ineligibility period; and three, an application for parole to the Parole Board of Canada. Allow me to highlight the key changes proposed by Bill S-6.

First, applicants would have to meet a stricter test at stage one by showing a “substantial likelihood” of success. This would screen out all less-meritorious applications. There would also be a longer statutory waiting period for re-application after unsuccessful applications, five years instead of the two at present.

The House will undoubtedly know of the high profile case of Clifford Olson, who has been making repeated faint hope applications virtually every two years. In fact, one was just last week. All this has accomplished is to make the families of the victims of Mr. Olson relive the horror and terror every two years.

Most important, Bill S-6 would impose a new 90-day window for offenders to apply, or reapply, under the faint hope regime once they have served 15 years.

Failure to make an application within that application window would bar any further applications for five years, at which time another 90-day application window would open.

These time limits are explicitly designed to shelter victims' families and loved ones by requiring offenders to make their intentions clear at the earliest opportunity and by restricting the number of applications that can be made over the course of an offender's sentence.

The amendments made at the committee stage undermined virtually all of these worthwhile goals.

The government is committed to protecting the rights of victims of crime. We want to see an end to faint hope reviews so that victims' families would not need to suffer the anguish of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and relive their losses over and over again.

I think it is mindful that the House be advised of what one of the spokespersons for victims of crime said at committee regarding repeal of the faint hope close.

Ms. Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is the mother of one of Clifford Olson's many victims, said:

We at Victims of Violence believe this process is heavily weighted in favour of the offender. The emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than on the crime itself, the victim, or the impact of the crime on the family and communities. We believe that when Mr. Warren Allmand, the member of Parliament responsible for this clause, talked about the waste of the life of the offender who is kept in prison for 25 years, he seemed not to take into consideration the innocent life the offender wasted when he or she made the decision to commit murder. There is no parole or judicial review for murder victims and their families. They have no faint hope clause or legal loophole to shorten their sentence. Victims of Violence also believes the offender is not sent to prison to be punished, but rather the sentence itself is the punishment, according to the Criminal Code of Canada. Thus we continue to ask a very simple question: Is the sentence 25 years, or is it 15 years? It cannot continue to be both.

That ends Ms. Rosenfeldt's testimony before the justice committee.

As was demonstrated at the committee, the Liberals, on the other hand, are more interested in playing politics instead of listening to the victims of crime.

As a result of the several unnecessary Liberal amendments to Bill S-6, such as removing the name of the bill, this important legislation will now have to return to the other place, unless of course this House decides to agree with the proposed amendments put forward today and reverse the amendments at committee.

The Liberal caucus claims to share Canadians' and victims' concerns about crime, but when the cameras are off, it uses every opportunity to gut, derail or delay our important government law and order, safe street and safe community bills.

These unnecessary amendments were clearly used as a political tactic to delay our justice legislation. It is inconceivable to me that such an important matter as the protection of the families and loved ones of murder victims be delayed by a dispute over semantics.

We are really getting to the bottom of the intellectual barrel when we start wasting time in committee debating the names of bills. That really, I think, brings a disservice to the intellectual debate that these bills require and that Canadians want and demand that we pass.

For all these reasons, I urge all hon. members to reflect on what I have just said today and to vote in favour of the government's report stage amendments that would reverse the unnecessary changes introduced by the Liberals at committee and allow this bill to quickly become law to the benefit of the victims of crime in this country.

Victims of crime have spoken loudly and unequivocally that they want this legislation passed and that they want it passed expeditiously. I urge all hon. members of the House to give deference to the victims of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendments, it was interesting that the new Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was recently appointed this past summer, as the government did not like what the prior one was doing, because he was being too forceful especially around the gun registry. The Conservatives did not reappoint him. At that point he was in favour, as were a number of the victims activist groups, of keeping the gun registry and opposed to the government's position. Anyway he did not get renewed in his position, like so many other people who do not agree with the government's agenda even though they are doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

Specifically on one of the amendments being proposed in trying to delete one the amendments made at the justice committee, we heard very clearly from the ombudsman and other victims about their absolute need for information, to know what is going on, such as whether there is another proceeding coming. Are they going to be faced with a process that they want to be involved in out of respect for their family member or loved one who has been murdered?

One of the amendments put in that the opposition parties supported was to deal with the situation. We have a situation with the faint hope clause where, a year before individuals are eligible to apply, the corrections officers have discussions with them, and all of the evidence that came out in the course of analyzing the bill and the faint hope clause—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I will terminate the hon. member's remarks so that the member has an opportunity to reply, which will be after oral questions.

The House resumed 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.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert had the floor. There are three minutes remaining in questions and comments.

There being no further questions, we will resume debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh was in the process of asking me a question. May I answer?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Fair enough. I will let the member for Edmonton—St. Albert respond to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question had to do with victims and one of the proposed amendments by the Liberal-NDP coalition regarding the bill before the House. It had to do with the alleged request by victims groups to receive information.

The reason the government rejects the amendment that came out of the committee is that it is absolutely impractical for Corrections Canada to anticipate whether or not an offender is going to make use of the faint hope provisions. This is information that is specifically and particularly in the knowledge of the offender and perhaps his or her solicitor. It is absolutely impractical for Corrections Canada to notify victims' families when an offender has chosen not to make application for the faint hope provisions. They just do not know.

More to the point, victims want closure. Victims do not want to be notified by Corrections Canada of an impending faint hope application or that there is not going to be an imminent faint hope application. Victims have told us unequivocally and loudly that they want closure. If the opposition members are really interested in conforming to the wishes of victims, they will allow the bill to proceed as it came to the House from the Senate without any amendments and to abolish the faint hope clause for future murderers.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the member aware that the removal of the faint hope clause would not have any practical effect for 15 years? The Conservatives have led the public to believe that somehow they are going to be removing the faint hope clause, but the public does not understand that nothing will happen for 15 more years.

Would the member comment on whether he has discovered why the Conservative government of Joe Clark in 1979 started mailing pension cheques to murderers in prison? Has he been able to investigate that yet?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The provisions of this bill will not be retroactive, nor should they be.

There is a principle of criminal law, which has been reinforced by our charter, that these provisions cannot be implemented retroactively. This will only apply to individuals who are convicted of murder on a go-forward basis from the time this bill receives royal assent and is proclaimed into law. That is appropriate.

Although the situations with Mr. Olson have often been cited and family members of the victims of Mr. Olson appeared before the committee to support this bill, the member is quite correct in that this bill will have no effect on those victims.

Realistically, and sadly, we can anticipate that these types of situations will occur in the future. This is to protect future victims—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there as he has gone over his time.

We will move on with resuming debate. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am participating in the debate today for two reasons. One reason is that I am concerned about the general approach the government is taking toward the House of Commons and toward the process of debate, discussion and amendment in a minority House. I will come back to that point in a minute. The other reason is our concern about the way in which the government is handling criminal justice legislation.

On the first point, my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert made much of the fact that this bill has gone through the Senate, which the government now effectively controls, and the House of Commons is now receiving the bill.

The government decided to put the bill in the Senate, not us. It decided to put the bill in the Senate and, miracle of miracles, because the government controls the makeup of the Senate, the bill managed to get through without any changes or amendments.

Then when the legislation comes to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons decides that it should be amended, if that is what the House of Commons decides, it is what the committee decided and we will see whether or not it is what the House of Commons decides, at that point the government takes great offence and says that if we amend this bill, that effectively means it has to go back to the Senate again. This is the government's most powerful reason for not providing any amendments.

To say that I am unimpressed with this approach is putting it mildly. The problem we have had with the government in both of its apparitions, the first apparition in 2006 and the second apparition in 2008, is that it has never understood what it means to govern in a minority Parliament.

It is clear that the government has never accepted the fact that it is a minority government. But it has no choice but to accept the possibility that amendments will be made to its legislation if it wants to create legislation on any given subject.

That is why I spoke today about the democracy deficit, which has been a problem with this government since it took power. The performance of the ministers answering questions in the House of Commons is deplorable. They never answer the questions, they just attack anyone who asks a question and there is never any substance to their answers. All they do is attack non-stop. This has nothing to do with democratic dialogue. I would know, because I have been in politics for over 30 years now. In my political life, I have never seen such a performance from a government that is supposed to support the notion of democracy.

I have never seen such a performance as I have seen by the government since my election to this place in 2008. The Conservatives never answer a question of substance. They never deal with an issue of substance. The only method they know to deal with any question is to attack. They attack the character, attack the personality, attack history, attack some other point.

Now the government turns around and says it is not prepared to deal with the amendments to this legislation. I have news for the government. There will be lots of amendments to legislation that it proposes. There will be lots of discussions and there may from time to time even be defeats if it persists in its approach of saying, “It is our way or the highway”.

It is not the way to conduct the public affairs of a country. It is the not the way to conduct the public affairs of a province. It is not the way to conduct the public business of Canada. We see day by day the corrosive effect of the attitude which the government continues to display. The way in which it continues to present itself to the House and the people of Canada increasingly attacks the very notion.

I find it so ironic that it was the Reform Party that came to the House with all of its ideas about how it was going to restore democracy. The government has shown a systematic contempt for parliamentary democracy. It knows nothing of respect for the parliamentary process. It complains about amendments being brought forward by the opposition. Of course there will be amendments. It is our right and our responsibility to bring forward amendments.

The government says it will not deal with them, it will never compromise, it will not negotiate, it will not make any arrangements to allow legislation to go through and that is the way it is going to govern. That is tough because if that is the way it is going to govern, then we have no option but to say we will stand in our places and fight and fight and fight again because this is an approach to democracy which simply cannot be allowed to stand.

The government claims that it is concerned about the economy. The member for Peterborough was up on his feet yesterday asking why we would bring up issues of the charter when we should be worrying about jobs. I would say to the member for Peterborough, show me the legislation you are bringing forward that deals with jobs, every single item. The Criminal Code is going to be bigger than the Encyclopedia Britannica if you guys are allowed to get away with this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have to take this opportunity to remind the member for Toronto Centre that he has to address his comments to the Chair and not directly to other colleagues.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I have only been here for years and I cannot get used to not using the phrase “you guys“. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I can only say that the approach to criminal justice that is being taken by the government is an approach that is not going to reduce the level of crime one iota. Every jurisdiction in the United States which has attempted the approach that is now being taken on by the Government of Canada is saying to us, “Please do not do what we did”.

British politicians are telling us emphatically that their prisons are overflowing, that they did not realize what the impact of some of their legislation was going to be. They ask us how we have managed to keep things under control. I look at them and say that we did manage for a considerable period of time with a crime rate that has been going down and not up and with protection of the public that has been going up and not down.

The only message the government over there knows is fear, fear and fear again, which has nothing to do with the reality on the ground and with the need to prevent. Does it have a crime prevention strategy? No. Is it encouraging those communities that want to prevent crime? No. Is it working with the provinces to make sure that we deal with gangs in schools and with violence on our streets? No, it is not.

Its only answer is to lock people up, throw away the key, be done with it, minimum sentences, et cetera. That is the only approach the government knows. It is not an approach worthy of the name. It does not pass muster when it comes to dealing with the challenges and problems we have as a country and it does not deal effectively with the problem that we have.

Do we have a problem of crime? Every country has a problem of crime, a problem of crime that comes out of poverty, a problem of crime that comes out of insecurity, a problem of crime that comes out of addiction, a problem of crime that comes out of drug dependence, a problem of crime that comes out of alcohol dependence, a problem of crime that comes out of hopelessness and no opportunity. The government does not get that. The government's answer to those people is to say it is simply going to lock them up and throw away the key.

Yes, the Liberals are going to be moving amendments to this particular bill. We are going to be hoping that our colleagues in the opposition and whoever has the will to stand on the other side will stand and deal with it. If the government says it is very inconvenient because it got this crystal clear bill through the Senate with no amendments and no discussion and there was no problem, as we say in French, tant pis, too bad.

That is the government's problem, not ours. Our duty, as the opposition, is to ask questions, propose amendments and listen to the witnesses who testify before committees, as is the case here. We need to continue to have a positive and responsible approach to tackling crime, instead of all these things that the government is proposing in the House.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member ended this exactly where I wanted to go with his speech, which I consider to be most unfortunate. The message that the Liberal Party and the coalition members are sending to people in our communities and the message they are sending to victims, the message that they are sending to people who are advocating for justice measures that will protect society, is “too bad”. They are going to be irresponsible when it comes to justice. They would rather play politics with the issues than actually stand up for safe streets and communities.

The message from the member for Toronto Centre is quite simple to the people in my community and the people in communities right across this country who want real justice measures in place, his message is “too bad, we are irresponsible”.

How does the member respond to that?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respond to it by saying that the member is full of hot air. I respond to him very directly by saying that.

What we have said is very clear. If we believe for one second that the whole panoply of prime measures that are being brought forward by the government actually address the issue of crime, actually address the question of safety on our streets, actually looked at the problems that people are facing in our communities, we will respond. We will respond in an effective manner.

However, when we are told, as we were told by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert that we should not be bringing forward any amendments because it is very inconvenient for the government, and the bill might have to go back to the Senate again, we have to say that nothing is being delayed. Issues are being debated. Issues are being discussed. We have an issue in the House for the simple reason that the government will not accept amendments. There has not been an amendment proposed that it has ever accepted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether he thinks the government is guilty of a little bit of false advertising.

The provisions under the faint hope clause bill will not take effect for 15 years. The Conservatives will be coming into the election in a few months proclaiming that they have gotten tough on crime and they have eliminated the faint hope clause and people are going to be very disappointed when they find out it is going to be 15 years before any part of this act takes effect.

Meanwhile, month by month, every month Conservatives are putting pension cheques in envelopes, licking stamps and sending pension cheques to Clifford Olson, a process that started under the Conservative government of Joe Clark in 1979, and they have yet to explain why they are still doing it or in fact why they started mailing those cheques in the first place.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right. When we look at this legislation, the particular bill that is being proposed by the government that they want us to deal with today, the government is saying to us that we have to get this through right away, that it is absolutely vital that we get the bill through because we are going to be making the streets safer.

This legislation will have no impact until 2025 or 2026. It is not urgent legislation. It is important to get it right. It is important to make sure that the people who are the victims of violent crime are given full information, which is what one of the amendments in this legislation is all about.

I do not know why we would not take that approach.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member's speech, particularly with respect to the approach of the government to lock them up, throw away the key and maybe some day or another they might get out. The problem with that approach is that it costs a fortune and it does not work.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on the enormous amount of money that the truth in sentencing bill is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer. Does he think that locking people away for a longer and longer period of time at great expense to the taxpayer actually will do anything to reduce the crime rate?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives we are going to dramatically increase the rate of incarceration, the rate of incarceration among the aboriginal population, the rate of incarceration among many minorities across the country.

We are going to put a huge burden on the provinces because most of the minimum sentencing requirements are affecting the provinces. They are not going to be affecting the federal government at all.

They are going to have a dramatic impact on that and they are not going to deal with the root problem, which is what I am trying to say. Tough on crime, absolutely. Where is it tough on the causes of crime? I do not see national addiction programs. I do not see national mental health programs. I do not see national programs dealing with the need for us to work very closely with the provinces on breaking up gangs. I do not see any of this.

What we see is a simplistic ideological approach to this question that will not do what the government says it wants to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to put the debate on this issue back into context. We are not debating Bill S-6 itself. We are debating motions moved by the government to restore the text of the bill to what it was when it was referred to the committee. After studying the bill, the committee made two minor amendments to reflect concerns raised during the study. The government has rejected those amendments.

The minister attended our committee meeting again yesterday. He urged us to spend more time studying Bill C-4 and make suggestions for amendments, which he would take into consideration. Today, he is objecting to such minor things as the title and extending the deadline after obtaining permission from the provincial chief justice or delegate because circumstances beyond a person's control prevented that person from applying before the deadline. That is what we are debating now.

Let us begin with the easy part, the title. The title the government wants to use is not the same in English and French. The English title is Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act. The French title is Loi renforçant la sévérité des peines d’emprisonnement pour les crimes les plus graves. With all due respect, those are not bill titles. They are slogans.

In my opinion, when we are talking about crime and about putting people in jail, we have to take a calm approach. We have to leave the hustings mentality behind and behave like parliamentarians. One would expect a minister of justice to be conscious of the dignity required in exercising his functions and do so of his own accord.

As long as they keep giving us titles that are really slogans, we will vote against those slogans. The trend seems to be on the rise, with the government trying it with nearly all of its bills. If they give us objective titles like the ones the previous government provided, we will vote in favour. This has become absurd. Some of the titles are outright libel against Canada's judges.

In that regard, the most impressive title is that of Bill C-16, which would purports to end house arrest for violent and dangerous offenders. No violent or dangerous offenders ever receive such a sentence, because current legislation clearly indicates that judges cannot sentence dangerous offenders to house arrest. Furthermore, these sentences are for more than two years, and are not the kinds of sentences that violent and dangerous offenders receive. If any judge in Canada were to release a violent or dangerous offender to serve his sentence at home, it would be the duty of the crown prosecutor on the case to appeal the decision. In some cases, the sentence could be overturned.

The government needs to stop making up these slogans and start proposing objective titles. In this case, I see a specific problem. Indeed, this time there are two slogans and furthermore, the French and English are not the same. This is what happens when advertising executives are hired to give titles to bills.

The second amendment, which is more serious, would extend the time period. Lawyers who have experience with these kinds of cases gave evidence before the committee. They explained to us how complex the procedures are and how hard it is to build a case 15 years later. Indeed, these requests are made 15 years after the offences, and the offender may have been through many different prisons in many different cities. The lawyers have a very hard time finding the old files. This was acknowledged by correctional authorities, who told us how much effort they put into these requests. They also told us that in many cases, it would be impossible to fulfill all of the requirements as set out in the legislation within the prescribed 90-day period. I therefore believe that the amendment proposed by the Liberals was carefully designed and drafted to target a specific problem, unlike the bills presented by this government.

It is only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the inmate, as the amendment says, that the chief justice of the province or a delegate could grant this additional 180-day deadline.

Victims have waited 15 years and we would be asking them to wait even longer. They will be told to wait 90 more days because for reasons beyond their control, the inmate the inmate's lawyer was unable to follow all the highly complex procedures within that timeframe. What is so unreasonable about that? Does the minister lack confidence? If anything comes from a committee, then it is no good. He asks us to make suggestions and we do. They are justified, but he does not accept them. I fully agree with the eloquent remarks made by the member who spoke before me.

Consider this: 84% of murder victims knew their murderer. Murder is often committed by a family member. In at least one case, that of young Mr. Kowbel, the father and sister testified to give him a chance even though he was the one who attacked them 15 years earlier, killing his mother and seriously injuring his father. Nevertheless, his relatives recognized his rehabilitation efforts.

This is essential legislation and we only use it when necessary. It is essential for setting the stage for someone facing a sentence of more than 10 and up to 25. He has to have some incentive for good behaviour and respect for the guards. This legislation is good for safety within the prisons and it has not been abused.

Statistics show that before 1995 only 63 applications were filed, 13 of which were denied. The fact that not many applications were denied makes sense because before an application is filed, prison officials have already reviewed the case. Of that number, 27 were approved, but with sentences up to 16 years and 20 years. Three were from 21 years to 23 years. Of the cases that were approved by the juries, 6 were denied by the National Parole Board. We can see from this that the safeguards are substantial.

Since that time, 921 people have been eligible but only 169 requested authorization. Of that number, 141 received authorization to apply and 125 were granted early parole. The result? No repeat murders. There was only one serious criminal offence, an armed robbery. Fifteen people were sent back to prison because they failed to meet some of the very strict conditions of parole imposed on offenders under the supervision of the National Parole Board. In addition, 11 people died.

This is not a law that is abused. We are keenly aware that it may require victims to testify and may cause them painful moments. The cases we are discussing, like the Olson case, will not be affected. Regardless, these offenders will have no chance of parole.

This is a useful law in terms of prison security. It is a good law that encourages some criminals who have committed serious crimes to be rehabilitated. It is a law that, in the end, has produced excellent results. What is worse is that we think that we are doing more in Canada but, in this case, it is quite the opposite.

In Canada, the time that murderers spend in prison is greater than in all other western countries, as well as in Australia and New Zealand.

Let us therefore respect the committees and vote the same way as those who have studied the issue carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member used an objective statistical analysis to defend the faint hope clause. How does he defend this as being good legislation when he heard from victims of crime this week at committee, although it was on another bill? The committee heard from Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of one of the victims of Clifford Olson, who has to go through faint hope hearings every two years. Mr. Olson has said that he knows he will never get a parole but that he puts people through the parole process because “he has the right to”.

What does the member say to the victims of crime and why does he use statistics to defeat the advocacy of the victims of crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to say that this will not happen again. Olson has spent 25 years in prison. This law does not apply to people who have served 25 years in prison. It allows people who are sentenced to 25 years to apply for early parole. Olson does not fit into that category.

In any event, this will never happen under the legislation as it is going to be passed, although it may be amended. Under this legislation, people convicted of multiple murders cannot apply for early parole. I have a lot of sympathy for the victims, and I think that I reassure them much more than the government does when I say that they should not worry because this will not happen under the laws that we are going to pass.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my recollection, the last time we spoke on this bill the committee was still waiting for a report on the actual statistics associated with the faint hope clause. I understand there were a small number of cases of battered women, mothers, who, in reaction, killed their spouse. These were some of the cases that came up with regard to seeking faint hope clause relief.

I wonder if the member is now aware of some of the incidents with regard to the faint hope clause that would put in perspective the kinds of cases that may come about and the frequency with which the provisions under the faint hope clause would be made available.

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

Mr. Speaker, anyone who wants to know how the law works should not ask a Conservative.

First, the concept of applying every two years comes from another law that applies to those who have already served 25 years in jail. What we are talking about here is those who would like to reduce their jail time.

Second, the law applies in cases where the application is rejected. Before it is rejected, the offender has to go before a judge, who decides whether it is likely that the application will be approved. Then a jury has to be convened, and it makes the decision. It takes quite a while from the time the offender applies to the time the outcome is known. Furthermore, the jury may decide that the offender cannot submit another application before a minimum, not a maximum, of two years has passed. This would go further than that. It is clear that such repeated applications every two years would no longer be allowed under this law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-6 and the amendments that made their way through the committee in recent days. After reading the transcripts of the committee, I see that it was a fairly acrimonious environment for the members in that committee.

The government wants to make three amendments. the first one being to restore the title. Its slogan on this bill is “serious time for the most serious crime act”. I cannot say that is just peculiar to the Conservative government because I have seen that sort of sloganeering in my own province lately, in the Manitoba legislature. I guess the new trend is to somehow take a bill, attach a person's name to it and give it a good slogan that can be pushed to the public in an election campaign.

The Conservatives seem to think that dealing with crime is all about electoral success and image. However, they raise a lot of expectations when they take on challenges like this. I believe that if we were to do a poll of the public after this bill passes, the majority of the public will believe that somehow the faint hope clause has disappeared, thanks to the government. However, that is not the case at all. It will take 15 years because the law will not be retroactive. It will not apply to anybody who is convicted of murder today. It will only apply in the future. And, because it will only take effect 15 years into the sentence, a lot of us members of this House will be long gone when this legislation sees the light of day.

In committee, I sensed that the Liberals thought they could manoeuvre their way through this process by sitting out the vote and allowing the bill to pass and that, by doing that, they would not get hurt in the election as a result of what they had done, and then, in the future, if they were to form the government, they would simply revisit the whole issue and bring back the faint hope clause. That is the brain trust over there in the Liberal leadership in figuring out how to deal with this. I have seen a lot of manoeuvring before but this one has certainly used a lot of imagination to sort out.

Nevertheless, the expectations that the government has brought upon itself for this legislation and other legislation will fall short at the end of the day when the public realizes that there will be more and more stories over the years about faint hope clause applications. People are going to say, “We thought they eliminated that”. The government will then need to explain that somehow it is 15 years.

It is not only this bill that causes a lot of confusion on the part of the public. Just recently, as a result of information that Clifford Olson was collecting pension cheques in jail, the government got excited and produced a bill, obviously not checking things out too closely, to eliminate pension cheques for prisoners convicted of murder. The government did this without doing any research, obviously, because if it had researched it, it would have found that it was the Joe Clark Conservative government in 1976 that started mailing pension cheques to Clifford Olson every month.

The government needs to reflect on the confusion that will be out there in the public. The public has this image of a minister stuffing Clifford Olson's pension cheque into an envelope, licking it shut, licking the stamp and mailing it every month. While the public is having difficulties making ends meet, the government is sending these pension cheques. It was a Conservative government that brought it in. It was the Conservatives' idea in the first place.

I have asked the government many times to explain what went into the decision-making. What sort of studies did it have? What was it thinking, as the member for Winnipeg Centre asked? What could the Conservatives have possibly been thinking when, in 1976, it decided to send pension cheques to prisoners in jail? We ask the question but we get no response. Nobody over there can explain or wants to try to explain why this happened.

I want to get further into the legislation that is being dealt with here and talk about another one of the three amendments the government is attempting to deal with here.

Part of the second amendment deals with the issue that if a person convicted of murder does not make an application within the maximum time period allowed by this section, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada or his designate shall immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse or common-law partner of the victim that is a convicted person and did not make an application.

If it is not possible to notify one of the aforementioned relatives, then a notification shall be given to another relative of the victim. The notification shall specify the next date on which the convicted person will be eligible to make an application under subsection (1).

That was there to be helpful to victims. The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has explained many times and has given the statistics of the number of people who are eligible. I believe he indicated it was around 900 people who are eligible under the faint hope clause, and maybe only 100 or so apply and then fewer than that actually make their way through the process.He points out, and truthfully so, that there are no re-offenders out of the process.

What we are trying to do is make things as easy as possible for the victims of crime but the government is trying to eliminate that. A government that pretends to support victims' rights is acting against something here that would be seen as supportive of victims' rights.

There was a victims' rights advocate, who the government got rid of because he did not agree with the government. He did not think it was moving far enough and fast enough on victims' rights. We have a criminal injuries compensation fund, which was brought in by the first NDP government in Canada under Ed Schreyer back in 1970-71, and it has been providing benefits to victims of crime for the last 40 years. Ontario also has such a fund but there is no fund at a federal level.

Where is the tough on crime government? Where are the Conservatives? They have been in power for five years.They say that they believe in services that help victims of crime but where is the criminal injuries compensation fund on a national basis that would be there to help victims of crime? That is the approach the government should be taking but that is not the approach it is taking. It is all about public relations.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the title of the bill has been mentioned a couple of times by members of the opposition. I was actually encouraged to hear that the provincial Government in Manitoba is taking a similar position to this government.

We actually think that titling bills, consequential amendments to the Criminal Code, does not actually help Canadians understand what Parliament is actually doing on their behalf. When a bill is titled subject to the intent of the bill, it works to ensure Canadians understand what we do here each and every day. We want this place to be relevant. We want people to know that Parliament is working on their behalf and that the government is working on their behalf.

I am encouraged to hear that Manitoba is taking a similar track. I would encourage the Manitoba member to support us in reinserting the title of this bill so that Canadians know what we are doing.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague who also sits on the justice committee with me the same question as I asked the Bloc.

With regard to the system whereby the faint hope clause is available, I know the member has analyzed this and listened to all the evidence that we heard at that point. Is she aware of any other system within corrections, parole or probation that has been as successful in terms of limiting recidivism? By that I mean not only the very minor breaches that sometimes occur but in particular there have been only two cases, in all of the cases where the faint hope clause has in fact been used, where there is even a suggestion of a serious crime being committed by individuals who are released under that program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tecumseh for the question he asked. According to the evidence we heard from justice officials, from victims groups and from organizations that work with inmates and with people who are out on parole, no, we did not hear of any other program within our sentencing regime and our Criminal Code that pertains directly to the Correctional Service of Canada that appears to work as well as the faint hope clause regime does and has proved itself to do--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for another excellent speech on the bill.

I want to make a Hansard correction. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh pointed out that I inadvertently indicated that the Liberals changed the faint hope clause, removing the faint hope clause option for multiple murderers such as Clifford Olson, and it was in 1997. I know I have mentioned that several times already, but I evidently have used a different year. Therefore, I want to correct that in Hansard.

However, the Liberal government did change the faint hope clause in 1997 to remove that option for any multiple murderers like Clifford Olson, like Mr. Williams. The fact of the matter is I do not know how much the public knows or understands about that.

This particular bill is to remove the faint hope clause for other murderers, but 15 years from now. The Conservative are going to campaign on the issue that somehow they have removed the faint hope clause. The reality is that it is going to take 15 years for it to take effect.

I would ask the member to comment on that particular piece of information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the member from the NDP and I am glad that I now realize that I misstated the name of the riding of my earlier colleague from the NDP. It is not Tecumseh, it is Windsor—Tecumseh. So for the record I would also join in correcting a misstatement.

The member is quite right that if one looks at the bill, the repeal of the faint hope clause will actually only have effect 15 years after the coming into effect of this legislation, should it pass all Houses, be adopted and receive royal assent. Clearly the Conservative government has no interest in educating the public, educating groups that represent families of victims and victims themselves of the actual facts of this case.

It is not surprising. We see it with a number of other pieces of legislation, such as the white collar crime bill, which the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were clamouring for back in 2007-08. The government finally brought it through after letting it sit for 216 days before actually pushing it forward. That is a bill that Liberals attempted to amend in order to remove the early release at one-sixth of the sentence. The Conservatives voted against it. How about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendments proposed by the government as a result of three changes the justice committee made at committee to Bill S-6.

I want to be clear that, like the Bloc, the NDP is totally opposed to the legislation and we will be speaking to that when this matter gets to third reading. With regard to the amendments, we supported the changes made at committee but now the government is trying to reverse those changes. One change is the deletion of the short title. The second change deals with the amount of time, which was very short and still is, an individual who was looking to apply for this would be given in order to make the application. The third change was a response to an issue of victims rights and sharing information with the families of murder victims and perhaps more extended members, loved ones and friends.

I will go through those three amendments one at a time, but before I do, it is important that at every opportunity we get we make it clear to those who are opposed to getting rid of this legislation and this regime that Canada has at the present time the longest sentences served, not given but served, in the world, with the exception of a very small category in the United States.

In the United States, where people are sentenced to life as a result of a murder, first degree murder in most cases, are granted the opportunity to get parole but they only serve 18.5 years. In Canada, people who are convicted of first degree murder serve 28.5 years.

In the United States there is a category where people can be sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. It does not happen very often but there are cases like that. Even in those cases, however, the average person in the United States who is convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life with no opportunity for parole ever, only spends 29 years in prison and then, on average, die in prison at year 29.

We heard this from practically everyone who works in this area and we heard the question being put to the Conservatives on the justice committee. They wanted to know where the problem was and where we were going with this legislation? The only answer was that it would make it less onerous on the families of victims of murder to be faced with the likelihood that they will need to go repeatedly before a judge to defend why the person should not be given the faint hope clause opportunity.

Then again, here are the facts. We have had 3 cases in the 4,715 either first or second degree murder cases where people applied more than once under the faint hope clause. Out of the 4,715 cases since this faint hope clause came into effect, the people who were eligible to apply for the faint hope clause, we had 3 applications. That is what this bill will do away with.

The other reality is that the average person who was released under the faint hope clause in 2009, the average sentence the person served was 25 years.

Even though we hear of reinstating this title of truth in sentencing, that they do serious time for the most serious crime, they are doing that time. If we were to look at the last five years, not just 2009, we would see that the average person was released under the faint hope clause after about 23 to 23.5 years.

The Conservatives have run around the country stirring up emotion and scaring the families and close ones of murdered victims by telling them that they will be faced with repeated applications every two years, which is what the law allows now. They have been told that every two years they will be before a judge or a judge and jury, or before the Parole Board and they will have to relive the crime. That is simply not true. As I said before, there have been three cases where there has been a second application. By the way, there was only a second application in those three cases. There has never been a case where a person has applied more than twice.

Therefore, this fear that every two years, from the 15th year when a person can first apply under the current law in a first degree murder case, until the 25th year when people could theoretically be faced with this, if my math is correct, five times, there has never been more than three cases, and that has only occurred on the second application three times. However, this fear is stoked and the Conservatives repeat it and repeat it.

My colleague from Winnipeg was telling me that Tom Flanagan, the mentor of the Prime Minister and the guy who suggested that Assange should be assassinated, was quoted in one of as saying that it does not have to be true what one is saying, it just has to be believable, which t is what this is about. This is believable because it is in the law that a person can apply every two years from the 15-year mark in first degree murder. Of course, if one is a multiple murderer, he or she cannot apply until the 25th year under the Parole Act. However, the Conservatives continue to say it.

We have witnesses who come before us out of fear. We had the ombudsman come before us and she recounted the stories of victims she has been in touch with. One of their fears was to wake up at around the 15-year mark and worry that for the next 10 years, every two years they will be faced with an application. Does anybody within the correction system, the justice department or the government tell them that is not what will o happen and never has happened? No. However, the Conservatives' minions run around the country saying that this is what people will be up against. They tell people who have suffered the tremendous loss of a family member that they will be faced with this every two years. That is absolutely false.

I want to speak to one of the amendments being proposed here. The reason the majority of the justice committee deleted the phony title was that it did not reflect the reality of what happens in Canada. When we are talking about a serious crime, and there is nothing more serious than murder, Canadian victims have every right to know that we keep murderers in custody longer than anybody else in the world, and that is 28.5 years on average.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct in what he said. The public actually do believe that somehow Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Russell Williams are, almost on an annual basis, making applications under the faint hope clause.

In fact, in 1997 the previous Liberal government introduced legislation that was passed in the House to ban faint hope clause applications for any multiple murderer. Clifford Olson has not been able to apply at all since 1997 and, even if he were, he could not apply on an annual basis anyway. This is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Tom Flanagan did say that what one says does not have to be true, it just has to sound plausible. That is the mantra of the government and that is the strategy it follows.

The member did mention that out of 4,715 cases there were only 3 applications, since the faint hope came into existence, made for a second case.

I would like to ask the member to repeat some of those arguments because I think the public should hear them over and over again.

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

Mr. Speaker, of the 4,715 cases since the faint hope clause came into existence, we have only had, on average over that period of time, and it has fluctuated slightly, 16% of people apply for the faint hope clause.

As I said earlier, in 2009, when prisoners did not get out until the 25th year, most of them applied quite late in the process as opposed to when they could have applied. Usually somewhere between 21 and 22 years is when inmates make their first applications. That is the normal pattern. It takes them about two years to get through that process and another year to get through the parole process.

We must remember that the faint hope clause only allows the right to apply for parole. Inmates still need to go through the parole process and they are at times not granted.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member just pointed out the minuscule effect this would have, if any, in increasing public safety. I know he has some good advice for the government on what it could actually do that would affect a significant number of people and make Canada safer, and maybe he could outline that.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the issue of alternatives.

In terms of reducing the fear people have of multiple applications, we should be examining the Parole Act and giving the Parole Board the authority, as we have under the faint hope clause. A judge and jury under the faint hope clause as it exists now can tell inmates that they have heard their application, that they will never get out and that they do not need apply again. They can do that right now and, in fact, have done it with Clifford Olson the one time he applied.

The Parole Board should be given the same jurisdiction so that we could then tell the families of the victims of murderers that the person was allowed to apply for parole, at this point it would be at 25 years, the individual was turned down and was told never to apply again or not to apply for another 10 years.

I want to be very clear on this for my friend from Yukon. The key here is that the government must communicate that to the families of victims and it is not being done right now. The families are oftentimes left in ignorance and then the Conservative Party plays on those fears. If we tell families what they will be facing, that they will never be faced with another application or that it will be 10 years from now, that is a great way of empowering them into being able to deal with the system.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill.

[Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the votes on Bill S-6 and the amendments be deferred to the end of government orders today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the votes be deferred to tomorrow, Tuesday, December 14 at the end of government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

As members of the House may be aware, the whips for the government and the opposition, or their designates, may approach the table and ask for the deferral of a vote. If both should do so, it is the Chair's wish that the two would come to some agreement in terms of when that would be. The Chair is willing to give the two designated whips a moment to consult and possibly re-approach the table with an agreement.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in a case like this, the latest date for the votes is the one that has to be accepted by the Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It would appear that the two designated whips are unable to come to an agreement, but are in agreement with the argument made by the hon. member for Yukon that when there is a disagreement, the votes shall take place on the later date proposed. As such, the recorded divisions stand deferred until the end of government business tomorrow.

The House resumed from December 13 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill S-6.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #147

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I think you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against this motion.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc will be voting against this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will be voting against this motion, but we have already voted.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #148

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the motion.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting against this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #149

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #150

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.