Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2009

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is rising on the same point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the member had not done his homework. The member had stated that it was reported to him, so I informed him that the reports were incorrect.

If in fact the minutes of the November 16 meeting of the standing committee indicate what he has said, I will ensure that those minutes are corrected because every single member at that meeting knows very well that I did not vote on any of the questions that were put to the committee regarding Bill C-36, including whether or not the title should pass, whether the bill should pass, or whether 500 new copies should be printed. Therefore, I will see that those minutes are corrected to in fact reflect what took place in the committee.

I do not blame the member. He is quoting from what appears to be a perfectly valid transcript and based upon that, he made his statement in good faith, but I am informing the member that those transcripts are not correct. We have a meeting this afternoon. I will ask that they be corrected to reflect what actually took place, which is that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine did not vote on any of the votes on Bill C-36.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This appears to be a discussion about the facts in this case. It is my understanding that the members are going to take some further action. If necessary, the Chair will return to this matter in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-36.

I will begin by reading a very short quote from a piece by the journalist Manon Cornellier published in Le Devoir. For my colleagues opposite who do not understand French and who do not read it, Le Devoir is a French-language newspaper published in Montreal. Ms. Cornellier is a journalist on the Hill and was present for our debates and speeches as well as the introduction of Bill C-36. Here is the quote in question:

“And what if the lack of hope crushed the desire for rehabilitation of the convicted and increased violence and the problems in prisons?”

If Bill C-36 is passed, I believe it is very likely that the answer to this question will be yes, that it will. What does an individual do when he no longer has a chance and has nothing to hope for?

I am truly convinced that my colleagues opposite have never gone into a prison and know nothing about criminal law because they are spouting utter nonsense before the Standing Committee on Justice. When I hear what is being said and the questions asked by some Conservative colleagues in this committee, I even wonder if they really passed their bar exams.

I am revolted by this morning's comments in support of passing Bill C-36. We are keenly aware that victims must be protected. I will repeat it for my colleagues opposite because the translation is slow. The Bloc Québécois agrees that victims must be protected. I will repeat it for my Liberal friends who are preparing to support Bill C-36: victims must be protected. However, adopting this bill will not protect the parents of victims. Unfortunately the victims were murdered. Murder in the first degree is the most heinous crime that can be committed by an individual, and it deserves the harshest punishment.

In Canada, the death penalty for someone found guilty of murder was abolished in 1976. I know that some Conservatives would like to see it reinstated, but that is not what we are debating today. They must stop making false claims and providing misleading information. It is not true that someone found guilty of first degree murder is sentenced to 25 years. When an individual is found guilty of first degree murder, he is sentenced to life in prison, which means until he dies. That is what a life sentence means. The Conservatives need to stop their disinformation.

Since 1976, prisoners have been allowed to apply for parole after 25 years, but they were sentenced to life imprisonment; that means life in prison. The Conservatives need to stop making the public believe that everyone will get out after 25 years, because it is not true. The statistics we have in front of us prove that.

The statistics date from April 9, 2009, and there must have been a few people sentenced for murder in the past few months. Let us round it off. There were 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences in Canada as of April 9. So they are not all out, and they will not all be out of prison. So when the Conservatives go all delusional and claim that Clifford Olson could be released, or that Bernardo could be released, they are not thinking about the parents of the victims. They need to stop. It is not true that Olson and Bernardo will be released, and this is why. This is what the Conservatives need to understand, because they have a lot of trouble understanding it, and some Liberals still have trouble with this issue. I will explain it, and I hope that it will be clear.

An individual is convicted of first-degree murder and immediately sentenced to life. This means that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. However, as things stand, that individual can turn to the courts after being in prison for 15 years. This is important, and it is what the Liberals introduced in 1976 when they amended the Criminal Code and abolished the death penalty. They introduced the current system, which is working very well. The Liberals and the Conservatives cannot say that it is not working well, because they have never provided any numbers.

I will now explain how the current system works. The individual is convicted and sent to prison, where he must serve at least 25 years.

After 15 years, if his good behaviour has been proven and attested, he can apply to the court. The Conservatives led us to believe that an individual could lie for 15 years in prison. Come on. It is obvious that the Conservatives never go into the penitentiaries. Some of them should visit institutions at least a few times a year to see how things work. They would see that inmates cannot lie with impunity, especially in a maximum security penitentiary. Individuals sentenced to 25 years or life are placed in maximum security facilities.

After 15 years, the individual must appear before a superior court judge in the place where he was convicted. I am going to go slowly, because the Conservatives think that this can be done anywhere in Canada where the individual is being held. That is not true; it is set out in the legislation. The inmate must appear where he was convicted, before the chief justice of the superior court, not just any judge, not a judge appointed by the Conservatives, but a real judge.

The judge in question will examine the application, have the individual appear and ask him to convince the judge to empanel a jury to consider his application. This is not an application for release. The judge does not have the authority to release the inmate, but only to empanel a jury. I will come back to this in a few minutes.

The individual appears before the superior court judge and tries to convince the judge that he has proof that he has changed. He can call the prison guards to testify and can do everything in his power to convince the judge to empanel a jury.

That is the first step, and very few get past it. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, we asked for numbers, and of course, if any of them had been flawed, we would have known, but they were all fine. So, the person appears before the court and convinces the judge. Then the judge empanels a 12-member jury in the place where the first degree murder was committed 15 years before.

The Conservatives need to stop saying that such an individual can try two or three times, because that is not true. That is disinformation. So, the judge empanels a jury of 12 people from the place where the murder was committed 15 years before, and then there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will translate that for my Conservative colleagues. It means that there has to be enough proof that there can be absolutely no doubt that the person appearing before the jury has changed his ways. The jury cannot free the prisoner. The only thing that the jury can do is say unanimously that he can request parole in a year or two, or three, or five. The jury decides. The jury does not let the prisoner go. The Conservatives are wrong again. They must be delirious. Maybe they have delirium tremens because they would have us all believe that the jury would not study anything and would just let the prisoner go. That is not what subsection 745.6 of the Criminal Code says. The jury has to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual has so completely changed his ways that he deserves to apply to the parole board.

What proof must be provided? The individual in question must provide some evidence. Criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, victims, victims' parents—given that the victim, of course, cannot testify—cousins, and the entire family, must explain how that individual has changed. I hope my Conservative colleagues are listening carefully. This will come as a surprise to them. I know they are not listening to me, but that is all right; at least it will be in the blues. Since 1976, 4,000 prisoners have been sentenced to life sentences. As of April 9, 2009, of the 265 applications submitted, 140 applicants had obtained a reduction in their parole ineligibility period.

This means that the 140 people in question obtained a reduction in the waiting period before they can apply to the parole board.

This brings us to the second step. They have convinced a jury. They jury has decided that the individual can apply to the National Parole Board in one, two or three years. It is up to the jury.

Then the individual goes before the parole board. My Conservative and Liberal friends who plan to vote for this bill should listen carefully; this is important. These are not my figures or the Bloc Québécois' figures; these are the National Parole Board's figures and they do not lie. Of the 127 applicants who were granted parole, 13 returned to prison, 3 were deported, 11 have died, one was out on bail, one was in temporary detention, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions. I think this bears repeating. I will set the record straight right now. We heard from people from the National Parole Board and the Department of the Solicitor General. They appeared before the committee and we asked them if any of the 13 people who returned to prison had returned for another murder, another manslaughter or another second degree murder. The answer is no. They all committed crimes like theft or shoplifting. Perhaps they failed to meet their parole conditions. Many Conservative and some Liberal members seem to think that when someone is granted parole, they sit at home, relaxing, with their feet up. That is not how it works.

The committee heard one of those individuals. What did we hear? All is not over for the 98 individuals who are on parole. Just remember what I was saying before. When someone is sentenced for first degree murder, they are sentenced to life. They are therefore on parole for as long as they are alive. For the rest of their days, the individual has to report to the parole board and has to stay on the straight and narrow and respect the law. Parole can be revoked at any time for a whole host of reasons.

I have pleaded similar cases and I know what I am talking about. For example, if an individual has to report to his parole officer every Tuesday at 9 a.m., and arrives at 9:30 a.m., a complaint will be filed and he will have to explain himself to the parole board. If he has to take training and does not show up for his classes, his parole is automatically revoked and he is returned to prison.

When the public is misled, those who spread the disinformation will get caught. And that is what is happening right now. What the current government is trying to do, probably with deliberate help from the Liberals, who are concerned about their dip in the polls when it comes to being tough on crime, is to destroy any faint hope an individual has of being released.

Bill C-36 proposes to fully eliminate the right of all offenders convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole on the day the amendment comes into force.

What that means is that inmates will become violent because they will no longer have any hope. What happens in penitentiaries when inmates have no hope? I hope that certain Conservatives, and especially certain Liberals who are about to vote in favour of this bill, will take a tour of a penitentiary to see what is going on. Individuals make themselves available to other individuals, often organized gangs inside the penitentiary, and become hired killers. It does not bother them because they know they will never get out. Parole officers have told us they are worried about increased violence in the penitentiaries if Bill C-36 is passed. Those are not just my words.

What else do they want? They want to protect the parents of victims and have them appear before the parole board as few times as possible. I do not agree with that position. I would say to the parents of victims that it is false to claim that they will be made to relive the same crime over and over, because only those individuals who have been rehabilitated can file an application.

Quite often, individuals who file an application—I have at least four examples—have already met with the victim's family in order to apologize, to speak to them or to find some way to heal the pain they have caused.

I will close by stating that Bill C-36 is a very bad bill. The consequences will not be felt today or tomorrow, but in five or ten years. At that point it will cause harm because we will have crushed an individual's hope. We will never support that.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, it was actually Clifford Olson not Barry Olson who was responsible for killing a number of children in British Columbia.

It is hard to listen to the member when in his previous question he said that we do not need to talk about the victims. He said that if a murderer is nice in jail, if the murderer says please and thank you, if the murderer opens the door for people and is a good boy in jail, then somehow the murderer should be allowed to approach the courts, approach the people of Canada for an early release after 15 years. He went on further to say that the murderer's family will testify that the murderer has changed his or her ways, that the murderer is actually a different person than when he or she was killing people.

Is the member truly serious in suggesting that the faint hope clause should stay and that we should tell murderers that if they are nice in jail we might let them out early? I may be an old fashioned type of guy raised by old fashioned parents but I believe the minimum standard expected in our prison system is good behaviour.

Why will the member not for one minute put the rights of victims ahead of criminals, just one time, especially on this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will put myself in the shoes of the victims' parents for one minute. I will give the same answer that I have given to others. My colleague should look at the case of Mr. Dunn, a lawyer who, a number of years ago, killed his associate, Mr. McNicoll, in a presumed hunting accident in Las Saint-Jean. Mr. Dunn was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years imprisonment. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and was given a life sentence.

Today, Mr. Dunn is no longer in prison. He is a success story and is doing very well because he was concerned about the victim. He was concerned about the victim's family. I would like my dear colleague to know that no one will be released by the parole board unless they show concern for the victim's family. It is impossible. I have never seen it happen nor will I ever. In fact, one of the parole board's most important criteria is that, while in prison, the individual must show concern for the victims' fate. No one is released if they do not show concern for the victims. Never. I can assure him of that and my colleague can verify it. We asked the parole board and that is exactly what they told us.

In reply to my colleague's question, I would say that, on the contrary, we are thinking about the victims, and especially the victims' families, when someone is handed a life sentence.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help noticing in the debate here today how barren and devoid of any concept of justice, forgiveness and reconciliation the speeches are by the Conservative side. Those are all part of our justice system, I hope. I hope some of those will come through in the debate here today but I have not heard it yet from the Conservatives.

I want to sincerely thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for putting all of the facts on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I am very familiar with such cases, because I have worked them. I defended clients who have applied for parole, and whom I told that they were not ready and would never make it before the National Parole Board. Members must know that there are three important and essential steps. The prisoner must convince a judge. The judge must bring in a jury, and the prisoner must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing a jury can do is to give an individual the opportunity to appear before the National Parole Board.

If this does not show concern for victims, I do not know what is. However, I will respectfully add that passing this bill is certainly not the way for the Conservatives to show their concern for victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that last point from the Conservative side, I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could comment on the witness the Conservatives brought forward, who was the father of a victim of murder, who indicated to us, over the course of his testimony, that in the last week or two before coming to us he had been on a panel with one of the individuals who had been released on early parole. As a result of his discussion with that individual, he had changed his mind on this section of the code and felt that there were occasions when it was appropriate for people, who have rehabilitated themselves and convinced a judge and jury that they have rehabilitated themselves, to be released earlier.

I just wonder if my colleague could comment on the impression that particular witness left with our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is so true. It is so true that a person cannot truly be rehabilitated if he does not care about the victim's fate and what the victim's family members are going through.

That witness, whose name escapes me just now, appeared before us. We discussed parolees. We talked about why first degree murder happens and about life sentences. Any person who might be released on parole would be subject to parole supervision for the rest of his days. The convict has to care about the victim's fate because if he does not, he will never be eligible for parole and will never be able to apply for parole under the existing system.

With this bill, which I find completely ridiculous, we are not only closing the door but taking away the individual's last chance at rehabilitation. I hope that my colleagues will consider the conditions and the consequences five years from now.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by my colleague's speech on this matter and moved by his comments in this House.

Several years ago, I heard a story on Radio-Canada in which some parents were sharing their thoughts on the parole system. I find it appalling that members on the other side of the House do not give more credit to the people responsible for the parole system.

Could my colleague tell us a little more about what we are hearing from people in the community, from other lawyers in the same field and from associations that support the Bloc's position?

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

Mr. Speaker, the main objective of the parole service is rehabilitation. What is rehabilitation? An individual may have received a very heavy sentence. Of course, I am talking about life in prison, because that person has committed the worst possible crime and killed someone in cold blood. There is nothing worse. The individual has taken a life; there is no doubt. Even as a criminal lawyer, I never had an easy time defending such a person.

Let us come back to the objective of parole. The individual has to be kept away from the population for many years, after which time officials will see whether he has begun a process of rehabilitation. An inmate will never be eligible for parole if he has not begun rehabilitation or a process that will lead him to recognize the seriousness of his crime.

What some people are talking about has never happened. That is why the parole service is so important in connection with the faint hope clause, and that is also why I am very much afraid that there will be more prison violence if this bill is passed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for St. John's East.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to split her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in rising in the House to speak to the bill, I want it to be known that I oppose the bill. In the same way that I treat all the bills before the House, whether they are government bills or private member's bills, I endeavour to look to the factual base in forming my opinion. It has been brought to my attention in the review of the bill by a number of persons and organizations, and what stood out for me was the submission to the justice committee by the Canadian Bar Association.

The brief was presented by the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, which represents more than 37,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and law students across the country. It also includes not only defence lawyers, but prosecutors. That is very important. These are the professionals who work day in and day out, year by year in this area and are fully apprised of the facts of what is happening in the judicial system, including in the administration of the faint hope clause.

The Canadian Bar Association's testimony to the committee was very clear and it seems to be consistent with what the other members presented today in the House on the bill. The testimony was that the government's communications on Bill C-36 suggest there has been an increase in the number of offenders being released under the clause. However, that this is far from reality, which deeply concerns me. It is incumbent upon all members in the House that when we take a position on a bill, or if we draft a bill for presentation to the House for serious consideration, that it actually be based on fact. This is all the more critical when talking about a bill affecting criminal justice and affecting those who are subject to the system and people who have been victims of crime.

The brief by the Canadian Bar Association on Bill C-36 raised a number of concerns about the proposed reforms, in addition to the fact that it does not appear to be premised on a fact based appraisal, and that has been endorsed by all opposition parties. They have been extremely concerned that no proper factual information appears to have been tabled by the government in tabling the bill. That is a of great concern, particularly given the fact that the Department of Justice has undertaken a number of reviews and, presumably, those reviews should have been tabled for consideration by all members of that committee.

The Canadian Bar Association also testified that the government clearly had not assessed whether the proposed reforms would actually enhance the objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system. Obviously the very point of amending the Criminal Code, which is a critical law for peace and order in this country, makes it absolutely critical and incumbent upon the government to show that the change would improve the safety of citizens. The Conservatives do not appear to have done that. It seems it has been more from an emotional base.

It is my suggestion to the House that, given the importance of these bills, it is very critical that they be fact based because we are affecting people's rights, the rights of the people incarcerated, the rights of the people working in the prisons and the rights of people who may be victims of crime.

The Canadian Bar Association testified that Bill C-36 was unnecessary and would not improve community safety. This should be the first and foremost matter in the minds of members of the House when we consider an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. The very purpose of the bill is to provide for the safety of Canadians, to punish those who may break the law and to impose punishments appropriate to ensure that we do not have recidivism and to ensure deterrence.

It is also important for the House to consider that the jury system is a very important component of the Canadian judicial process. As the Canadian Bar Association pointed out in its brief, when we abolished the death penalty in 1976 and put in place the new system of first and second degree murder penalties, included within that provision was the system for sentencing, the inclusion of provisions for the consideration for parole and, most important, the provision that juries would first and foremost make that consideration before the application may go to the Parole Board. A very clear and thoughtful process was followed when this process was put in place.

However, it did not stop there. The process for the review of these offences has gone through careful scrutiny and review by the justice committee and various studies have been done. On a number of occasions they have been enhanced and made stricter.The decision to amend in 1997 also was based on the fact that of the 63 people who applied initially, 13 were rejected, 19 were allowed to go to the board and 6 of those denied by the board, but only one reoffended.

We must remember, as the Canadian Bar Association testified, that the 1997 amendment put in very strict procedures for considering the faint hope clause. It was precluded for multiple murderers. We should not be using those examples in considering this. It is not even possible under the faint hope clause.

The amendments introduced a screening process by the judge before it went to the jury and required unanimous jury recommendation. The House should note the importance of this provision. It is a jury of people of the community where the offence occurred that is considering the matter based on information on the offence, the character of the offender, how the offender has conducted himself or herself in prison, whether or not the offender is likely to reoffend, and information by the victim. It must be pointed out that that is optional. There is no requirement in law that any family member of the victim of a crime be required to testify. It is the family's option, but it is an important option, and a right and privilege to speak against the release of a particular prisoner. The jury must also unanimously recommend that the consideration may be made by the Parole Board.

The intent of the faint hope provision is to try to encourage the prisoner to show true remorse and to work hard at rehabilitation. That is an important part of our prison system. That is what sets us apart from a lot of regimes. Our regime is based on trying to rehabilitate every prisoner who goes into our system.

The hope is faint. There are many barriers to being able to obtain early release. We must remember that early release in many cases is very late in the game.

We also must remember that early parole is subject to a lifetime of supervision and that the parolee can be sent back for any transgression.

What is really troubling me is that the government seems intent on removing the parts of the judicial process where the jury is involved and where we actually work toward rehabilitation of prisoners. More important, the government has not seen fit to provide the resources to prevent crime. The most important thing we can do for victims of crime and future victims of crime is to prevent the occurrence of crime.

This past week I visited a youth emergency services program in my riding. It is an incredible program that is struggling to get appropriate resources. It takes in young people off the street, protects them from becoming victims of crime and tries to prevent them from becoming engaged in the criminal process. It is a commendable program where people dedicate themselves, and it is struggling to receive any federal funding.

Instead of trying to further punish and take our criminal system back to medieval times, I would encourage the government to look at the incredible process that we have developed over time. I would encourage the government to start redressing the frailties by properly financing our crime prevention programs. I encourage the government to put resources into those programs to give those who might otherwise become involved in serious crimes a chance to decide not to. That is the best way to serve our community and prevent crime. It is the best way to help those who may become the victims of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the committee hearings, there was a good deal of evidence that came forward from a number of sources, and I think we can say it was uncontradicted, that the incarceration rate in Canada for first and second degree murders is the highest in the world, with the exception of the United States. Quite frankly, in some of the evidence that came out, the length of time--I want to be clear on that, the length of time--that people spend in custody in Canada is the longest, even over some of the United States.

I wonder if the member could comment on the continued demagoguery that we get from the Conservatives of Canadians being soft on crime, our courts being soft on crime, this legislature being soft on crime, when we have an incarceration rate that is the highest in the world, with the exception of one country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has asked an excellent question.

Indeed it is of grave concern to me and members of the legal community with the increase in incarceration of people who are convicted in Canada. I have had the opportunity of working in the Yukon and participating in circle sentencing. It is incumbent upon the government to look at more innovative approaches to addressing crime, engaging the community and having appropriate responses.

I am also equally concerned about what we are hearing regarding the rising levels of solitary confinement of prisoners, in particular aboriginal prisoners. We already have far too high a percentage of prisoners and far too high a percentage of the aboriginal population incarcerated. It is time we started addressing these critical matters.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need some assurances about our approach to criminal justice issues, the role of incarceration, the role of rehabilitation and the role of prevention.

At the end of her speech, the member mentioned the need for a better balance in terms of crime prevention. I do not know what the latest statistics are but maybe she could provide some with regard to the effectiveness and cost efficiency of prevention rather than remediation after we have the problem.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the statistics off the tip of my tongue. I would hope that those statistics would have come before the committee. Certainly, they should be before the House before we make these kinds of decisions.

From my over 35 years as a lawyer, I am certainly aware of the percentage of aboriginal members of our community who are incarcerated. I am deeply concerned that now the government wants to put even more people in our jails which are very overcrowded. In our jails, there is a propensity for a lot of violence which could include prisoners who are in jail but not for violent behaviour.

It is critical that we think carefully about what the purpose is for the offences we have put under the Criminal Code. We should mirror that with looking at whether we are putting enough resources toward preventing people becoming involved in violent acts to begin with and being imprisoned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding the proposed amendments to what is known as the faint hope clause under the Criminal Code for those sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for stated periods of time.

First, it has to be understood that what we are talking about is literally a faint hope, very faint, in fact. As of April 2008, there were 4,429 prisoners serving life sentences. We can compare that to the number of people who have actually obtained parole under the faint hope clause for the last 20 years, which is 131. We are not talking about opening the prison doors and letting everybody out. We are talking about the mere possibility of someone having an opportunity to seek parole.

There is a very stringent process in place that allows for this very faint hope. It involves at least three steps, probably more. I will outline the three most significant steps that have to take place.

For example, if someone is sentenced to life without any possibility of parole, the first criterion is that there must be at least 15 years of the sentence served. We are not talking about someone who committed a murder, has been in jail for a few years and is trying to get a free pass out. We are talking about someone who has served at least 15 years in jail, which is in fact longer than the average time spent in custody of anyone sentenced to life in New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, Belgium and Australia, for example. We are talking about people who have already served at least 15 years.

The first thing that has to be done is to convince the chief justice of the province or territory in which the conviction took place that there is a reasonable prospect the application for review would succeed. If that test is not met, there is no opportunity to get parole. If the chief justice, or whoever has been designated, is satisfied there is a reasonable prospect, then it goes to the next step.

The justice first considers the character of the applicant, the conduct of the applicant while serving the 15 years plus that has already been served, and the nature of the offence. Those concerned about people who are guilty of serial murder will not be surprised if it would prevent someone from getting early parole. Also considered is any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of a hearing under the section and any other matters that the justice considers relevant.

If an inmate meets those criteria and a provincial or territorial chief justice thinks there is a reasonable prospect the review might succeed, it then goes to a jury. Whatever opinions the Conservatives have about justices, I would hope they would have faith in our jury system. Our system depends on a person having a trial by jury of his or her peers. If an individual happens to get past the first hurdle, then there has to be a unanimous decision by 12 members of the jury that the person ought to have the period of parole ineligibility reduced.

For example, if the eligibility for parole is set at 25 years and 12 members of a jury unanimously agree, they can say they are satisfied that the period of eligibility for parole can be reduced, and not only that, they get to say by how much. They can say they agree that the person should have an opportunity to apply for earlier parole, but it can only be reduced by two years or three years or five years. It is the jury's decision in both of those cases. A unanimous decision is needed for the possibility of reducing the parole and a decision of two-thirds of the jury is needed in determining the number of years.

All that does, after those two hurdles, is give the individual a right to apply to the National Parole Board. There is no automatic parole. That just allows the Parole Board to even consider an application from an individual who has been given a long sentence.

A faint hope clause review is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence. Nor is it a parole hearing. A favourable decision by the judge and then later by a jury in a separate hearing simply advances the date on which the offender will be eligible to apply for parole.

When people talk about our system not being tough on criminals, we have to compare our situation with countries around the world. In Canada the average time a person is incarcerated is the highest in all countries surveyed, including the United States, where the average life sentence means someone serves 18.5 years. In Australia it is 14.8. In New Zealand it is 11. In Sweden it is 12. In Belgium it is 12.7. Canada, compared to the United States with 18.5, is 28.4 years. That is the average amount of time someone serves if he or she is given a life sentence in our country. That is for first degree murder. Therefore, we are talking about a very faint hope indeed.

The importance of the faint hope has been underlined by the John Howard Society, for example. It says that the availability of the faint hope clause may provide incentive for prisoners to rehabilitate themselves. It also adds that the repeal of the clause allowing faint hope could lead to increased violence in Canada's prisons. It says that if one takes away even a faint hope, there is a potential that the incentive to behave well will go with it.

I am particularly moved by the example described by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh about an individual who changed his mind when he heard the story of one individual who had left the prison system under the faint hope clause and turned himself into an advocate for integrating other inmates and prisoners back into society. He had dedicated his life, in fact, since his release to doing that. That is an example of what can happen.

I am obviously not saying that everybody who ever gets out under the faint hope clause is a paragon of virtue. Let us face it, these individuals may have rehabilitated themselves enough to convince the Parole Board, after convincing a justice and a jury, that they were not a threat to society. They will at least be able to lead their lives outside of prison. However, this is an example of an individual who not only rehabilitated himself, but has now dedicated his life to the rehabilitation of others and to assist those who end up in prison for any number of reasons, such as getting caught in committing a crime. He helps to integrate them back into society and thereby protects all of us, protects Canadians because we have one more individual who has gone down the wrong path and is now able to rehabilitate others and help them lead useful and productive lives, which makes for a safer country.

There are lots of reasons why the faint hope clause should be maintained.

I see my time is up and it looks like we will head into statements very soon. Maybe there will not be time for questions and comments before the break, but I will leave that to the wisdom of yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Those are my comments at second reading. We have very serious concerns about these proposed reforms. We need to keep the faint hope clause.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for St. John's East is correct. We will return with questions and comments after question period.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Williams Lake, B.C.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a big celebration happening in Williams Lake, B.C. this Wednesday. On November 25, a spanking brand new Walmart superstore will open its doors to a huge crowd of excited shoppers.

This will mean 300 full-time and part-time jobs to a region devastated by the mountain pine beetle. This will mean that local charities will see a huge boost in their fundraising because Walmart is one of the biggest corporate charity supporters in Canada. This will mean a huge boost to the tax base of the town of Williams Lake. This will also mean some great merchandise at some great prices.

Congratulations to Walmart, to the Pioneer Family Group, to Avion Developments, the Seibert family and to the people of Williams Lake. Good job, well done and it is going to be a great Wednesday.

20th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

There are no rights more fundamental than those of the child, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. It is a shame, therefore, that Canada has yet to implement this convention and to commit itself to the protection of children's rights both at home and abroad.

The best interests of the child should come first and include: promoting greater equity in Canada's national income support program for children, including reducing poverty so it is less than 5% by the 25th anniversary of the convention; ensuring that no child in Canada should ever become a ward of the state or go to prison to get help for special needs; affirming that the best interests of the child underpin all intergovernmental funding disputes; and advancing the right of young people to be heard in matters that affect them.

Finally, the government should make the convention a part of Canadian law, establish a commissioner for children's rights, provide regular public reporting on the status of children and a fair review process for complaints in Canada and at the UN.

Simply put, the test of a just society is how it treats its children.

Rural Postal Services

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is currently evaluating mailboxes on rural routes as part of its rural mail safety review. A number of mailbox owners will have a choice to make: change their set-up as required, or use a community mailbox.

Not only could rural residents be deprived of their right to receive their mail at home, but a cut in mail delivery will necessarily result in job losses. I support the Canadian Union of Postal Workers which is wondering whether Canada Post's safety argument is not just an excuse to cut costs and reduce services offered to people in rural areas.

That is why I oppose any attempt by Canada Post to reduce services if citizens, their representatives and postal workers have not been duly consulted.