Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2009

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

The House will now resume the remaining business under routine proceedings.

Canada Post

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the people of Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets, Deschaillons, Parisville and Sainte-Françoise-de-Lotbinière. These people are calling on the government to maintain the moratorium on closing rural post offices. Even though the minister has made a statement, they are still worried about the current government's positions.

The purpose of this petition, which has many signatures, is to keep our rural post offices open.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls for the release of Ms. Birtukan Mideksa from arbitrary imprisonment. Ms. Mideksa is president of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party of Ethiopia and has been held by the government since December 2008 without charge for a politically motivated life sentence.

According to Amnesty International, she is a prisoner of conscience. She was pardoned of all charges against her before being arrested, again for no reason. She has had no formal hearings and has not been given access to her lawyer. Human rights organizations have been denied access to her. Also, her family contact has been limited. She has been held in solitary confinement in life-threatening conditions.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass private member's Motion No. 334, which requests that the government exert maximum pressure on Ethiopia to release Ms. Mideksa and allow her to fulfill her functions as a leader of a political party.

Pension Funds

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(1) and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present this petition with regard to the Nortel retirees and former employees protection committee.

This particular petition responds to a response from the Prime Minister's Office of October 28, in which his correspondence secretary said, “Be assured your comments have been carefully considered”, and that was it.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Company Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of all Canadian employees and to ensure that employees who are receiving a pension or long-term disability benefits and are laid off by a company during bankruptcy proceedings obtain preferred creditor status over other secured creditors.

They are also asking that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to ensure that employee-related claims are paid from the proceeds of Canada asset sales before the funds are permitted to leave the country.

This is an important petition and I hope the Prime Minister will heed the words of the Nortel retirees.

The Environment

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a large number of people in my riding of Trinity—Spadina calling on the Government of Canada to support the NDP's Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.

It also calls upon the Government of Canada to invoke a moratorium on the further expansion of tar sands development until carbon emissions are capped significantly, environmental and health impacts are addressed and protected areas are set aside.

The petitioners are concerned that the federal government is failing to enforce law that protects water and public health and regulates toxic pollution leakage. My constituents are concerned that over 4,800 square kilometres of wetlands and forests will be lost because of the expansion of the tar sands.

Firearms Registry

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first petition is with regard to the fact that the long gun registry was originally budgeted to cost Canadians $2 million but the price tag spiralled out of control to an estimated $2 billion a decade later. The petitioners state that the registry has not saved one life since it was introduced.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon the House of Commons to support legislation that would cancel the long gun registry and streamline the Firearms Act.

Protection of Human Life

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from a number of constituents with regard to life.

The petitioners state that Canada is a country that respects human rights and includes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life. They, therefore, call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

Health

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition is again from constituents and it is with regard to medical benefits.

The petitioners state that a number of severe and potentially life-threatening conditions do not qualify for disability programs because they are not necessarily permanent. They are calling upon the House of Commons to enact legislation that would provide additional medical EI benefits to at least equal maternity EI benefits.

Animal Welfare

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition calling on the government to support a universal declaration on animal welfare. The petition states that scientists and the public know that animals can feel pain and suffering and that we should do everything we can to avoid cruelty to animals and reduce their suffering.

The petition also states that more than one billion people around the world need animals for their livelihood and that many people have pets. Finally, it says that animals can suffer a great deal in the event of a natural disaster, yet they are not taken into consideration in emergency response planning, despite their importance to humans.

Many people across Canada and especially in the riding of Outremont support this universal declaration on animal welfare.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 457 and 460 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 457

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to the AquaNor 2009 conference in Trondheim, Norway, in August 2009: (a) what was the size of the Canadian delegation, including the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (b) what was the duration of stay for each member of the delegation including the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (c) what was the total cost to the government for participation in the conference, including but not limited to delegate fees, accommodation, travel, hospitality and per diems of the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (d) what was the amount spent on hospitality to non-Canadian delegates at the conference; and (e) what was the total cost incurred by the government relating to this conference?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 460

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regard to Canada's First Defence Strategy: (a) which of the following are a part of the strategy, (i) acquisition of three strategic air transport aircraft, and stationing them at CFB Trenton, (ii) doubling the size of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), (iii) acquisition of three armed naval heavy icebreakers, and stationing them in the area of Iqaluit, (iv) building a new civilian-military deepwater docking facility to accommodate the three armed naval heavy icebreakers, (v) establishing a new underwater sensor system, (vi) building a new army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay, (vii) stationing new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons at each of CFB Goose Bay and CFB Comox, (viiii) stationing new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft in Yellowknife, (ix) increasing the size of the Canadian Rangers by 500, (x) establishing of a 650-member battalion at each of CFB Comox, CFB Goose Bay, CFB Trenton, and CFB Bagotville, (xi) adding 1000 regular force and 750 reserve force personnel to the army in Quebec, (xii) establishing a territorial defence unit in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and the Niagara-Windsor corridor; (b) what is the rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of each item from the Canada First Defence Strategy; and (c) for each item that is not a part of the strategy, has the government taken any steps to carry out or implement the item, and if the government has not taken any such steps, does it intend to do so and, if so, when?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Conservative Government; and the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Telefilm Canada.

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

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When we left this matter earlier today, the member for St. John's East had completed his speech, but there remain five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member has to do with information that would come out in discussions we have had on the bill, the faint hope clause, for some time. It has to do with the statistical occurrence of these serious crimes by family members against family members and friends against friends. Most Canadians would agree these would not be characterized as severe criminals, but rather some other characterization where they would not be a dangerous offender, for instance.

Does the member have any information on the latest statistics with regard to the incidence of crimes of people who know each other very well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the actual statistics. I do not have them before me, but I know that the vast majority of murders are committed by someone who knows the person who is the victim of the crime. I suppose that begs the question as to whether the intention on the other side, in removing the faint hope clause, is to extract a supreme punishment so the average penalty for someone who is given a life sentence raises beyond 28.4 years imprisonment than it does now, or whether the government is really worried about the protection of society.

I believe it is commonly known by criminologists and others that the type of crimes that the hon. member speaks of are not normally crimes which may be repeated and that the opportunity for rehabilitation is probably greater. The protection of society can be achieved with a faint hope clause where it can be demonstrated and a jury unanimously agrees that the person can apply for parole. Then the Parole Board can determine whether it believes the person is a threat to society and make the decision.

I believe the information the hon. member speaks of is actually helpful to the idea of retaining the faint hope clause.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, serious time for the most serious crime act. This amends provisions with regard to the rights of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole.

This is done by the elimination of the so-called faint hope clause. It is a clause by which those who are given a life sentence for murder or high treason can apply for parole after having served 15 years of their sentences.

This section of the Criminal Code is known colloquially as the faint hope clause because it provides offenders with the possibility of obtaining parole after serving 15 years of a sentence for murder where the sentence was life without eligibility for parole after more than 15 years.

Offenders convicted of first degree murder serve life as a minimum sentence, with their first parole eligibility set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, but the judge can set the parole eligibility point anywhere between 10 and 25 years. Those who are serving a life sentence can be released from prison if parole is granted by the National Parole Board.

If inmates are granted parole, they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a Correctional Service Canada parole officer. Parole can be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time. This does not allow them to get out of jail free forever. They can be returned to prison at any time if they violate any of the conditions of parole or if they commit a new offence. Not all “lifers”, people who are in jail for life, will be granted parole. Some may actually never be released on parole because they continue to pose a risk of reoffending.

I rise today because I am against getting rid of the faint hope clause. I am against it because it really is faint hope. Not very many prisoners actually access this clause. Further, it is very much an incentive for inmates to behave, to ensure corrections workers are safe and to promote good behaviour in the prison system because there is the faint hope of release.

The Association Québecoise des Avocats et Avocates de la Défense appeared in committee and put forward an excellent submission about the actual impacts and implications of abolishing the faint hope clause. It asked a great question in committee. Why get rid of a measure that is likely to encourage individuals who have committed a serious crime to be rehabilitated? Why would we get rid of something that would encourage them to be rehabilitated and become active members of society?

Further, with respect to the average time spent in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder, the average time served in Canada is greater than in all the other countries that the association surveyed, including the United States. The average time spent in custody is 12 years in Sweden and 14.4 years in England. Guess what it is in Canada? It is 28.4 years in Canada. Canada's offenders are serving sentences beyond the 25 year mark.

In 1976 a bill was introduced to allow for a review of the period of ineligibility after 15 years. This was in the submission of this group, which quoted Jim Fleming, who was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of communications at the time. He was quoted as saying the provision was “a very important glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals”. It still resonates today.

In 1998 there was the Ontario Supreme Court decision in Vaillancourt in which Associate Chief Justice Callaghan held that the review process needed to strike a balance between considerations of leniency for the well behaved convict in service of his sentence and it may serve to assist in his rehabilitation and the community interest in repudiation and deterrence of the conduct that led to his incarceration.

The numbers of people who are accessing the faint hope clause are not what the government would have us believe. We do not have murderers lining up at the door and suddenly accessing this provision and getting out of jail without serving time. It is just not the case, although the government would have us believe it is the case. What it is trying to do is scare us into passing these crime and punishment laws that actually do not impact and affect very many people, numbers wise, but they can have a tremendous impact on those people.

In the first faint hope group of hearings in 1987 to 2000, only 21% of eligible offenders even applied for a hearing. Over those 13 years, 84 cases were successful in having some reduction in parole ineligibility, an average of 6 a year. Therefore we are looking at very small numbers.

In the same 13 year period, the parole of only 4 offenders was revoked for an alleged new offence. They were armed robbery, drug offences and two less serious drug offences, but parole can be revoked for any reoffence.

The four amendments in 1997 significantly curtailed the availability of section 745.6. The Canadian Bar Association noted how few people this impacted and said that of the 63 completed applications prior to 1995, 13 were rejected, 19 were allowed to go to apply, 27 were allowed to go to the board only after 16 to 20 years in prison and only 3 could go on to the board after 21 to 23 years were served. Six prisoners whose applications to the jury were successful were ultimately denied release by the Parole Board.

Therefore, it is important to remember that we have people who are not even self-selecting, not even saying they will make that application. Even those who are allowed to make the application and those who then go on and are granted early release, and the numbers are getting smaller and smaller, are subject to a lifetime of supervision and may be re-institutionalized for any transgression. It is also notable that of those who have been allowed early release to date, only one has reoffended by committing an armed robbery.

The numbers are so low, but the results are staggering because this means the possibility of rehabilitation. I would note that this has possible implications for taxpayers. After serving over 15 years in prison, it has the possibility to save taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year if the board is satisfied that this person is rehabilitated.

I noted earlier that the Canadian Bar Association appeared before committee. That association is a national association and it represents over 37,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and students across Canada. Its primary objectives include improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It takes prosecutors, defence lawyers and legal academics from every province and territory. It is seeking to improve the law and improve the administration of justice.

The association has come out quite unequivocally against getting rid of the faint hope clause. I will read from the submission of the CBA. It was talking about what the government was doing. It is saying that the government communication on Bill C-36 suggests an increase in the number of offenders who are being released under this clause. The CBA says that this is far from the reality and it has the numbers to back it up.

It says that the government seems to imply that even one person having access to the National Parole Board before serving his or her full 25 years is too many. The CBA clearly states that it disagrees with that statement, and I disagree with it as well.

If we are going to consider any review or amendment of the Criminal Code, we must recognize that all reform needs to be fact based. It needs to include an appraisal of the present situation and a careful assessment of whether reforms will actually enhance the objectives of sentencing in the criminal justice system, not just what the polling numbers say.

Important questions need to be answered, such as what are we trying to accomplish. Are these reforms actually going to make our communities safer, and do we need this legislative change?

Let us consider some of these things.

I go back to the point of the faint hope clause. It operates fairly, effectively and efficiently. It really needs to be retained and should not be amended. It gives hope to people who are serving lengthy terms of imprisonment, which encourages rehabilitation. This results in safer conditions within prisons, and in the outside world as well, once a person has been rehabilitated.

Each time the National Parole Board decides that a prisoner can be safely and gradually released, again under supervision, after serving 15 years in prison, it saves taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. This also provides a unique opportunity for community input into an integral and essential part of the sentencing process.

I mentioned doing things based on polling numbers. A lot of people do believe that the faint hope clause simply allows convicted murderers to be released after serving only 15 years of their sentences, but that is not the case, and it is time for us to set the record straight on that.

The Canadian Bar Association quoted Professor Allan Manson, who has noted that:

[those who] claim that parole eligibility review does not have public support seem to ignore the fact that a prisoner's application is determined by a jury who are usually members of the community where the offence was committed. Accordingly, the prisoner obtains relief only if the jury decides in his or her favour.

It is actually the community that is making the decisions about whether or not somebody is released. I cannot think of more broad-based public support than having a jury made up of one's peers in the community actually making these decisions.

The jury's verdict absolutely must be seen as a measure of public support for this process, particularly because the jury actually has to have a unanimous decision. It is not just a matter of a couple of folks saying, “Let us give this guy a break”, but the unanimous decision of a jury.

My colleagues from Mississauga South and St. John's East had an earlier conversation in the House about people who have been convicted of murders and who actually know their victims. That is very much the case. I do not have the statistic in front of me, but the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers know their victims. So when there is an opportunity for victims to give input to the jury, there are people there who know each other. Families are involved.

We have to think about what kind of input they would be giving to a jury and that sometimes there may be opportunities for a family or community to say, “We want you back. It is time for you. You have served and been rehabilitated, and we have an interest in your coming back to the community. We have a stake in your coming back to the community”. That is a very powerful consideration.

To recap, the faint hope clause serves a very important purpose in that it does provide faint hope. If someone who is convicted of murder or high treason works very hard at rehabilitation and is truly remorseful, he or she might be released on parole after serving 15 years, but before the full 25 years of incarceration are up.

It is a faint hope, because they actually need to satisfy their case management team, their psychologists, their psychiatrists, a judge, and a jury, that the application is even worth being considered by the National Parole Board.

Look at all of those steps. Ultimately, it is the National Parole Board that remains responsible for determining if the offender is worthy of early parole, but look at all of those people who need to be convinced first. It is an onerous process, as it should be, and it is not something to be taken lightly.

The faint hope clause does provide an incentive. We can say this over and over again, because it is incredibly important that there be an incentive for those serving a life sentence to behave well while in custody and to seek out rehabilitative programming.

I ask members, what would they do in that position? If they were in prison and knew there was absolutely no chance of being released, would they engage in rehabilitative programming? I do not know if I would.

This is a reason for them to work on their behaviour. This is a reason to get engaged with rehabilitative programming.

Moreover, let us not forget our brothers and sisters working in these prisons. The faint hope clause contributes to safer working conditions for prison guards and employees of the Correctional Service of Canada. Anything that we can do to make a safer environment for them, I think is something we should all get behind.

A purely punitive model is inconsistent with years of research and statistics that have founded our sentencing philosophy in Canada. We have not just come up with this and made it up; this is based on years of research to show what actually works when we are looking at sentencing philosophy and principles. We need sentencing principles that show that a safer society is achieved by emphasizing rehabilitative initiatives and adherence to human rights principles within penal institutions.

The Canadian Bar Association section recommends that Bill C-36 not be enacted. I actually will read directly from the bar's submission because the last paragraph of its submission completely sums up what we should all know about this clause. The association writes:

The “faint hope” clause does not jeopardize public safety, as shown by experience to date. The current limits on the availability of “faint hope” hearings provide ample impediments to undeserved or frivolous applications. There are few “faint hope” hearings. The number of murderers who offend at all, let alone violently, while on parole is extremely low. On the other hand, the “faint hope” clause serves important functions, in terms of fairness and rehabilitation for deserving offenders who have made significant changes over 15 or more years of incarceration.

I think the bar association's conclusion sums it up perfectly. We need to offer faint hope for all the reasons listed above. For safety in prisons, for behaviour, and if we want to throw in the taxpayer money angle of it, we need to support the faint hope clause and stand in opposition to this bill.