Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2009

Criminal Code

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the presentation by the NDP member. I noted she was talking about the fact that the system, as it currently exists, works fairly effectively and efficiently.

She also quoted extensively from the Canadian Bar Association, which has its own perspective on this bill.

I would like to give her an opportunity here on public television and in Hansard to speak directly to the victims, not the victims who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, unfortunately, but the parents, the friends, the family and neighbourhoods of those victims who are once again faced with the reality of what they were feeling 15, 20, or 25 years ago, and the immense loss they and their communities have suffered, when the faint hope hearing comes up. They again face the same tearing, the same shredding, of their emotions from the heinous crime that was perpetrated against a loved one in their family. I would like the member to relate her perspective to them on why this bill should not be repealed and why these people should not have an opportunity to avoid the kind of tearing that happens at these faint hope clause hearings.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not take lightly what happens to victims of serious crime. It is a tragedy. I wish the government would put more energy and effort into preventing crime rather that just cleaning up after the fact, waving flags and having press conferences.

I have experienced this within my own family. We have suffered violence at the hands of one family member against another. The first family member went to prison, as he should have. He served his time, and when he was released, we were the victimized family who said, “Now is the time”. We welcomed him back into our family and community with open arms. I would also point out that this was very serious, because he was the sole breadwinner for the family.

There are other considerations at play. The violence should not have happened, and nobody in my family thinks it should, but there are other considerations at play. For example, this person is a valued member of our community who has been rehabilitated, and he does need to move on and continue to give back to, and be a part of, the community.

Once again, I will bring up the process that we are looking at here. The victims of an offender's crime may provide information either orally or in writing to the jury. So we have the victims' input. Often, the victims are saying, “This is the time”. Moreover, the jury has to reach a unanimous decision.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious matter when the government proposes to make any changes to the Criminal Code. It is a very important law for the protection of citizens.

One thing I have noticed is that some members have mentioned heinous criminals, such by the Clifford Olsons of the world. It is very important for the record to clarify that the faint hope clause is not available to multiple murderers. Maybe the member could respond to this. We need to be clear about the existing constraints on this provision.

In her reply to the question from the hon. member across the floor, she also mentioned the need for more attention to be paid to the prevention of crime. I think it is also important to look at the contexts of these crimes. In many cases, they are crimes of passion within families and communities and involve, in many cases, people who have been abandoned, who are homeless, who are destitute and drug-ridden.

I wonder if she could speak to the issue of whether or not we are putting enough money into crystal meth treatment for youth, for example, so they do not get involved in serious crime and, ultimately, in murder and in going to prison.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is really about prevention. It really is about these bigger issues.

Look at who is in prison. It is first nations individuals and aboriginal Canadians. In my home province of Nova Scotia, African Nova Scotians are in prison, as are people with disabilities and mental health issues.

Does this mean that African Nova Scotians are bad people and all of them deserve to go to jail? No, of course not. What is the root cause here? We have to look at things like racism, poverty and treatment. My office is in the north end of Halifax, where there are lot of social problems. Two weeks ago during our break week, one of my constituents came in from the street. We know each other quite well. He was just out of jail for serious drug offences. He came in to say hi and to talk about it.

He is not a bad guy. He has an addiction issue, he committed a crime and he wants to be rehabilitated, but he cannot get into a treatment program. He cannot find a treatment program to help him deal with his issues.

I thank the member for her question. I think she is bang on.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments of the opposition to this bill and it all seems to be about the offender. Every last bit of it is about the poor offender who committed these terrible crimes like murder, and yet we are talking about releasing them early.

Not enough time is being spent in this debate on the victims. There are all kinds of people who have said something about the victims. There have been some comments made here in the House. One was made by Teresa McQuaig, whose grandson, Sylvain Leduc, was murdered on October 28, 2009.

I was at the parole hearing for Clifford Olson. For 25 years, he was applying for parole. Two years went by so quickly and it was time to go back again. I remember saying to Sharon Rosenfeldt, “My God, is it two years already? You are going to go through this hell all over again tomorrow”.

It is so hard on victims, it is not fair. Five years, I think, would be reasonable.

Is my colleague going to give any consideration at all to the families of the victims, not to the offender?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately about the victims. It is about the victims because it is about the individuals, it is about the families, and it is about the communities that will be safer when somebody has actually engaged in rehabilitation programs.

Imagine a world where someone who was released had no remorse, had not engaged in rehabilitation programs, and had not made any effort to reintegrate into society. Imagine people being released where society was still at risk. This is such a process. A jury needs to make a unanimous decision before an applicant goes to the Parole Board.

This is exactly about the victims. This is about keeping our communities safe. This is about helping people, giving them reason to actually engage in rehabilitation programs. This is about engaging with them and not just about signing on a dotted line. This is about our communities. This is about keeping people safe, whether it is the victim, the victim's family, or the community that the victim comes from.

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

Madam Speaker, countries in Europe, for example, Belgium and England, have a similar type of legislation with a faint hope clause. Could the member give us any examples of successes that have emanated out of those jurisdictions or any other jurisdictions around the world?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I actually do not have at my fingertips examples of other jurisdictions where this has worked. As the member very rightly points out, the faint hope clause is working in other jurisdictions.

I come back to the submission of the Canadian Bar Association which said that any time we are going to look at the Criminal Code, any time we are going to make amendments or reform the Criminal Code, we need to base it on solid evidence. We need to base it on research. We need to base it on what we know to be true when it comes to sentencing and dealing with crime, and not base it on emotion. That was a great line in the CBAs submission at committee. We should not be basing this on emotion. We should be basing it on what we know works.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that Bill C-36 has only one title in French and in English. Loi modifiant le Code criminel is in French and it is An Act to amend the Criminal Code in English, but it is also worth noting, as we go through the different documents and papers that were prepared in previous months by different associations and attorneys, the Canadian Bar Association is a good example, to see the title of Bill C-36 appearing and re-appearing as the serious time for the most serious crime act.

The question might arise, who cares? This is a description perhaps of the way the Conservatives wanted this sold, but actually it is an extremely important distinction, one on which it is worth spending a little time today if we want to know how we can best decode what the Conservatives are up to here.

This has rigorously nothing to do with the supposed the protection of victims. This is about people who have committed a crime, are now in jail, and whether or not we should be spending some time and effort to rehabilitate. We should be making life less dangerous for people who are working as prison guards, by making sure that people do have, and that is what it is called, some faint hope that if they behave properly, they might be able to go before a judge and ask that their case be reviewed by someone else.

However, when we see this type of gamesmanship on the part of the Conservatives, giving things different names. In fact, this bogus name even re-appears on some fairly serious documents. I have the legislative summary prepared by someone whose title is legal in the legislative affairs division of the Library of Parliament, and another document with regard to questions and considerations on that bill. They use in both cases “An Act to amend the Criminal Code” and then they go on and use the subtitle, which does not exist, the subtitle of serious time for the most serious crime act. It simply begs the question: If that is not the title of the act, what is it? If that is not part of the legislative process, what is it doing here in the Canadian Parliament? How does it make it through, and what are they really about?

Here is the answer to the question why the Conservatives are playing games like this is because that is what this is all about. This has rigorously nothing to do with the serious subject of the Criminal Code. This has nothing to do with better protection of victims. It has everything to do with positioning, posturing, and the type of pandering that the Conservatives have been doing to their Reform base for years.

Just prior to this debate starting again we had one of the Conservatives stand up and talk about the gun registry. He gave the figure that it had cost so much and that became an argument to knock it down. Quite the contrary, the very existence of the gun registry and the fact that it is something that was put in place at great cost is a further argument for maintaining it, especially in light of the fact that every police force in Canada is asking Parliament not to do away with the long-gun registry.

I was in Montreal last Thursday for the annual policemen's awards. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Sûreté du Québec, Montreal and area police forces, and police officers from across the province were there, where we saw brave women and men receive recognition by their peers for their extraordinary work.

The one political message delivered time after time by police officers themselves throughout that day, because there were a lot of people there from Parliament, both from the Senate, from this House and from other levels of government, was “Whatever you do, do not take away something that protects our lives”. They explained to us that the gun registry is consulted tens of thousands of times per day across Canada. It is an instrument for public protection and it is an instrument for police protection.

As a father of a police officer, I am always extremely concerned about that, because I understand what it means to have a police officer in an area where there is a long history of that and going to a place where there has been a signaling of some domestic dispute. He or she at least has that much more information going to the door knowing that there might be firearms in that house. That simply is one more measure of protecting police officers.

This is the ultimate irony. The members who stand up day after day and give bogus titles to bills, thereby tipping their hand that this is everything about optics and nothing about the substance of crime protection, nothing about more resources for the RCMP and nothing about more resources for local law enforcement, but everything about positioning themselves with regard to their political Reform Party base.

When we realize that police officers are asking us to keep the gun registry, when we realize that people who work in the prisons are saying we have to maintain some hope that people can get out eventually because if we do not it is going to make their lives a lot worse. Imagine if the Conservatives had their wish, that we went to the American style system with 125 year sentences, when people have no hope of getting out, what does that do for the risks involved for the people who work in prisons? It makes it a lot worse. Why do we think the Canadian Bar Association is imploring Parliament not to play these petty political games?

Do the Conservatives care? Absolutely not. Are they concerned about law and order? Baloney. They could not care less about law and order and if they thought about it for one second, they would be doing anything but dismantling the gun registry as they would purport to do because they would ensure it remained an important tool in the hands of police officers across Canada.

All this is about, as is the case with so many of their other bills, is trying to make people believe, going to the extent of changing the title of the bill to make it an advertisement for their right-wing policies as opposed to something substantive, is that the Conservatives are doing something on law and order when they have done nothing.

In fact, they cut the salaries of the RCMP once they had voted for them. That is the reality of what the Conservatives have done. They talk out of one side of their mouth to say that they are there for law and order, they scrap the gun registry and they lower the salaries of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are not there for law and order; they are there for themselves. But they know that they have a political base that cares about this, so they come up with this type of bill where they actually stick in a title that is a sop to their Reform Party base saying they are finally doing the stuff they promised they would do.

Last year the Conservatives had a bill that had a title dealing with trafficking in humans. Actually most people on this side supported it. I voted for it because I thought it sent the right signal, but in an important parliamentary debate some colleagues in the House thought there were too many problems with the bill in terms of the law, the charter of rights and other substantive issues. There were concerns and doing what they were sent here to do, they voted against that bill.

What was particularly galling was having a debate on a bill whose grandiose title was yet another attempt to change reality by referring to trafficking in humans. The debates were interesting, but many experts said there might be a problem.

I voted in favour of the bill because I thought it sent the right signal, but other colleagues decided to vote against it. What happened? The Conservatives used taxpayers' money to send out flyers. These are the same flyers that made the headlines recently in terms of the right to send out ten percenters at great expense to the taxpayer. I saw it. It was quite extraordinary grandstanding.

I have been in politics for a long time and I do not believe I have ever seen anything like it. On the cover page we see an empty swing. It is not a regular swing with a flat board, but a baby swing for a child that is too small to walk. It was an empty swing and the back of an adult walking away with a child.

They individually attacked, one by one, the hon. members who voted against this bill. I did not share their point of view, as I just said, but I voted in favour of this bill. It was an informed decision. I am a lawyer. I looked at this bill and I thought it sent an important signal even though, substantively, I was not convinced that it would produce the effect suggested in their ad. However, when I saw these meanspirited attacks I realized that this had everything to do with maligning public perception of the opponent and nothing to do with the matter at hand.

They like to teach lessons. They say that public money must be spent carefully. All this work is being carried out with public money. They are spending $100 million in public money on infrastructure signs, which are often printed in the United States. Unbelievable. It is bad enough that we have to live with the U.S. Buy American Act, which shuts out Canadian companies. But they are dumb enough to have our work done in the United States. The Conservatives are having the signs for Canada's infrastructure program made in the United States. It is in the same vein as what we are talking about today.

Most experts who are familiar with the prison system and have compared sentences in Canada with those in other countries, categorically disagree with the Conservatives that Bill C-36 has anything to do with tougher sentences and with families. Every time they rehash one of the few cases in Canadian history of an individual, a serial killer, who was a recidivist. But the fact remains that it no longer even applied to someone in this category.

That does not prevent them from rising, time after time, with a tremor in their voices, to ask questions such as the one we just heard and demand: “Why are you against the victims? Why do you want them to suffer a second time.”

The only people suffering from this rhetoric is a public tired of a government that, four years later, has not yet understood that it is no longer in opposition.

I would like to tell my colleagues about the time I was a member of a party that had been in opposition for nine long years in Quebec. When we finally came to power, some smart alecks decided to take some elements of our platform and begin to put together a law with a title that had these kinds of suggestions. It is not just a bill to amend the Criminal Code, it is a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to send a message that there will be more serious time for the most serious crimes, and so forth.

Luckily there were some adults in the room who said that it was tempting, that it sounded good, but, as the Interpretation Act states, the title is part of the legislation, somewhat like the preamble is part of the laws that still have one and, on occasion, is used by the courts to interpret the legislation.

The very fact that they are playing this game shows what little respect they have for the institution. Coming up with a bogus name that would never appear anywhere, but simply serves as an ad for their own purposes leaves us in no doubt about where they are coming from.

They are showing their true colours. It is a pure and simple attempt to win the votes of a certain segment of the population that is very susceptible to these kinds of comments. I will say this to those who might be tempted to fall for the Conservatives' siren songs. How is it that the same Conservatives, who are trying to convince them that they are for law and order, are going against the clear wishes of Canadian police forces regarding maintaining the firearms registry? This registry protects police officers and is an important tool to fight crime. The Conservatives say they want to fight crime, but why do they say one thing and do another?

Why, when it comes to determining whether we will make changes to take away any hope from a prisoner, are the Conservatives playing with public safety instead of taking action? This hope could mean that a prisoner behaves better in prison, and unlike what they have claimed, it does not negatively affect families. Society would not take away any possible chance of rehabilitation.

Let us spend a few moments considering the men and women who work in prisons. This will make their lives more dangerous. Let us spend a few moments considering the police officers who have to deal with certain individuals.

The Conservatives recently revealed another item on their wish list: consecutive sentencing, like in the United States. We will end up with crazy American-style sentences for 125 years in jail, which is longer than anyone has ever lived, but they do not think it is a problem. They want to copy the American model and convince themselves and the public that their goal is to provide better protection. There will always be some people who are willing to accept such arguments.

When one is in Parliament dealing with that kind of demagoguery, one is tempted to say that the last thing we should do is talk about it because that would allow them to achieve their goal. No doubt some of them are happy to hear people speak the title they wanted to give this bill.

Personally, I have more faith in the intelligence of voters. I would far prefer to draw attention to this flaw and eliminate this kind of playing with people's emotions on issues like protecting the public and fighting crime. We must denounce this flaw, which involves using our parliamentary institutions for blatantly partisan purposes that have nothing to do with protecting the public. We need to say what this is all about, so people can make an informed decision during the next election.

I am pleased to rise here this evening and to say loud and clear that I am not impressed by the Conservatives. The Conservatives will not have the opportunity to intimidate or frighten the people of my riding, people whom I trust.

This bill will make life more dangerous for the men and women who work in prisons. The Canadian Bar Association, which represents all lawyers and notaries in Canada, has publicly announced its firm opposition to this kind of demagoguery. It did an excellent job of revealing the real intentions behind this.

This bill is part of a series of measures the Conservatives are trying to sell as action to ensure law and order, when in reality, it is nothing more than political marketing. They are not taking any concrete action to enhance public protection. They are simply acting in a very partisan way, for their own interests and with one specific goal in mind: pandering to their partisan political base.

In our opinion, if Bill C-36 were to pass, it would be a definite step backwards in terms of law and order, especially for people who work in law enforcement.

Far from being intimidated by this type of attempt to play with people's sentiments and to sell something as being in favour of law and order, it is our intention today to say that when the Canadian Bar Association comes out against this type of effort saying that it has nothing to do with law and order and everything to do with the political posturing of the Conservatives, when we see the people who work in carceral milieu, in the penitentiaries for example, saying that it would make their lives more dangerous if we were to remove the faint hope for people who are there, and when we hear the speeches about the victims and the questions about why we are opposed to the victims, we realize that it is all the same register. It all has to do with political posturing and salesmanship and nothing to do with the substance of the file.

The temptation, of course, when one realizes that this is the constant game being played by the Conservatives, is to tell oneself that it gets quite nasty. One need only look at the types of ten percenters and the types of personal attacks they send out. If this is billed as being serious time for the most serious crime, the next attack from the Conservatives will be to tell Canadians that their MP is opposed to having serious time for the most serious crime. They will turn it into another political attack.

I say that we should let them go ahead. They are seriously underestimating the intelligence of Canadians. Removing even the faintest hope for people who are in prison on long terms, which Canada does indeed impose, is the best way to make less secure the lives of the women and the men working in our penitentiaries for example. It is the best way to ensure, with the types of more than life sentences that the Conservatives are seeking to impose with other legislation, like the American system, that life inside will be far more dangerous for everyone.

We have a system in Canada that is balanced, that has always been balanced and that is built on a structured, intelligent analysis of the real needs of our society. What we have here is none of the above. What we have is pure demagoguery, a sop to the Reform Party base and that is why we will proudly stand and vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked about victims and queried rhetorically how Bill C-36 would help victims.

Members will undoubtedly know that individuals who apply under the faint hope clause have been convicted of a crime that carries a sentence of life imprisonment. Typically, we are talking about people who have been convicted of murder and, therefore, their victims, sadly, cannot speak for themselves, but their families can.

I sit on the justice committee and we heard from many families of victims who were all in favour of this legislation because they believe they were revictimized.

There is a principle in criminal law that an accused cannot face double jeopardy but the families tell us that they face double and sometimes triple jeopardy when they are faced with serial applications for faint hope when the families must go back and relive the horror of the loved one who was taken from them.

My question for the member has to do with his comment regarding the long gun registry. He seemed to suggest that this government was not serious when we said that we would be tough on crime because we voted in principle at second reading to repeal the long gun registry. He seems to have some concern with that.

Does the member really believe that long guns, shotguns and .22s are used in the commission of crimes?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing that anyone who has lived long enough to get themselves elected to the House would be able to formulate a question such as that one, to ask whether or not long guns are actually used in the commission of crime.

Of course they are. We can look at the statistics. That is the demagoguery. That is what we are dealing with here. The police across Canada consult the registry 40,000 times a day. They need it to do their jobs safely.

Those same high priests of law and order are not listening to the very women and men who are out there actually applying the law and maintaining order across Canada. That is the hypocrisy.

With regard to the faint hope clause, the member should remember what the Canadian Bar Association said. This is not some lobby group. This is not one of the parties against the other. Too many people believe that the faint hope clause simply allows those convicted of murder to be released after serving only 15 years of their sentence. The CBA section urges the government to set the record straight rather than enacting legislation based upon misinformation. That is a straight shot at the Conservatives by none other than the Canadian Bar Association. It is well deserved. It is a campaign based on misinformation and demagoguery.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this subject is one that seems to come up in every Parliament. The numbers do not much change because it is very rare that anyone gets out under the faint hope clause. However, there are certainly circumstances. I know from the work I have done on fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol-related birth defects, many people in the jails of Canada have committed very serious crimes and families of victims are very distraught and will never be the same again.

However, in our system, people who have mental incapacities have been put in jail. Being in jail will not help them. There is no rehabilitation for mental illness. There is no money to do it. In some cases such as fetal alcohol syndrome, it is not even a situation that can be rehabilitated.

Could the member comment on this? I believe Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan did a survey of their own of the provincial institutions and found that about 40% of the inmates in those prisons suffered from some mental illness. The minister of justice of the day, Anne McLellan, said that it was similar in federal institutions.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would prefer to stay within the subject matter before us today, although the subject of fetal alcohol syndrome is such an important one. I sincerely hope that the work being done, for example by people such as Brian McInnis in Toronto, to ensure that alcohol bottles contain proper warnings with regard to the possible effects of alcohol continues. However, it is another debate for another time with regard to what we are doing today.

Today we are dealing with something called the faint hope clause, where the Conservatives purport to be changing the bill to provide tougher sentences for the worst crimes. The people who have taken the trouble to look at the bill have concluded that it does nothing with regard to what it purports to do. That is why the Canadian Bar Association has told the government that what it is doing is based on misinformation. Those are tough words coming from the Canadian Bar Association and the government should listen to it, but of course it will not. This has everything to do with playing to its Reform Party base and nothing to do with public protection.

With regard to the long gun registry, it is the same thing. Police across Canada have been saying, “Please maintain the registry”. The very people who are in charge of law and order are asking the government to keep the registry. The government that claims to be in favour of law and order wants to scrap it, saying it costs too much. That is a ridiculous argument. Now that it has cost probably far too much, because of the incompetent Liberals who put it in place, the last thing we should do is scrap it because that is adding insult to injury to the taxpayers who paid for it in the first place and to the police who are using it every day.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the member for Outremont for his very coherent and strong words about this bill. I would agree with him entirely that when we read the title, the serious time for serious crime act, immediately it tells us what the bill is all about.

What I find most ironic is that when we look into the history of the faint hope clause and when it was brought in, which was in 1976, one of the reasons it was added to the Criminal Code, and it was done at a time in connection with the abolition of the death penality, was in the hopes that it would provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves.

I have not heard the Conservatives use that word. They are all in favour of victims' rights and that is very important, but this is about our justice system overall. This issue of rehabilitation and the fact that we are providing protection for prison guards was one of the reasons this clause was put into the Criminal Code in 1976.

Would the member comment on that?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right and it makes a lot of sense.

We can understand that if people have been incarcerated for, let us say, a 25 year term, behaving properly and not behaving violently becomes one of the things that can give them, and this is the reason why it is called the faint hope clause, a faint hope that perhaps by making life easier on people around them, by making the carceral milieu one that would be safer, they have the possibility not to drag the victims back before the courts as they would suggest on the other side, but to go before a judge, to go before a jury of 12 people. They have to be unanimous that he or she can even make the application.

The fact is, contrary to what the Conservatives would have it be, this is about providing a way to have an influence on people's behaviour once they are in prison. There are very few cases where this has been applied successfully. They are extremely rare, but at the very least, we should listen to the men and women who work in the penitentiaries and do everything we can to make their lives safer. Removing the faint hope clause makes their lives more dangerous.

A lot of this is based on misinformation. It is not just us who are saying it. It is also the Canadian Bar Association.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want a point of clarification. Actually, my comments are for the member for Edmonton—Strathcona with regard to a question she had from one of her colleagues. I think she would want to set the record straight on this.

She mused that the law had been changed and that multiple murderers were not eligible for the faint hope clause. That law changed I believe in 1996 or 1997, predating Clifford Olson, who she associated with her comments. In fact, Clifford Olson as recently as 2006 applied for the faint hope clause.

I am sure she would want to set the record straight at a future date in this debate in respect the victims of Clifford—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I do not know if the hon. member for Outremont wants to respond the question.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question was addressed to someone else, who has not made her speech yet. My colleague will be more than able to answer it because she was right in what she said.

Speaking of my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, having witnessed the sexist remarks by the Minister of the Environment today, I can only say that if these big, strong defenders of rights were only interested in defending charter rights, including the equality of men and women, perhaps we would hear less sexist remarks like the one—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36 on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of this bill at third reading, even though we supported the bill in principle at second reading in order to send it to committee so that witnesses could be heard and could enlighten the government about the bill's scope and merits. It appears that, as my NDP colleague, the member for Outremont, mentioned in his speech, clearly major witnesses such as the Association des avocats de la défense and the Canadian Bar Association vigorously opposed this bill. Having heard the witnesses and thoroughly reviewed the bill in committee, the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill at third reading.

Quite simply, we also feel that this bill is not warranted. Once again, the Conservative government is using smoke and mirrors to try to make people believe that it is getting tough on crime and that is it in favour of maintaining order and strict public morals. It is introducing a whole raft of bills whose application is really quite doubtful. Bill C-36 is a case in point.

We know that the bill addresses the most serious crimes, such as premeditated murder, that have the biggest impact on victims and affect the population as a whole. We recognize that. Individuals sentenced to life in prison can apply for parole after a certain length of time, depending on whether they have been convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder. We recognize that in the hierarchy of crimes, these are very serious crimes. That is why these major crimes carry the stiffest penalties and, as I said earlier, are punished by life in prison.

Sometimes sentences are too lenient and parole is too lax, for instance, parole after one sixth of the sentence has been served, which we have right now and which could benefit white collar criminals because this government decided to take its responsibilities. In Quebec, we have the Norbourg affair and the Vincent Lacroix affair. The latter will be released after serving one sixth of his sentence with exorbitant amounts of money that is probably being kept in some tax haven somewhere such as Barbados, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos or Trinidad and Tobago. He is going to live the sweet life after serving a few months in prison and depriving honest people of their income. That might have been the only amount of money they were able to set aside; a little nest egg they managed to build up over years of hard work. It was not necessarily multi-millionaires that Vincent Lacroix bilked. In most of the 9,200 cases, it was ordinary people who had worked their entire lives. There was even the case of two young people who had inherited money from their parents after they died in an automobile accident. That money and the insurance settlement they received went up in smoke because of Vincent Lacroix's malicious acts.

We agree that parole should not be too lax because that undermines the credibility of the justice system and fuels the impression that criminals are treated better than victims. I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois sides with the victims and not with the criminals, as the demagogues opposite accuse us whenever we oppose a law and order bill on this government's agenda.

That is what happened with the Afghanistan issue: we have been accused of being on the Taliban's side. That is no joke. That is how the Conservatives work. That is demagoguery, and that is why this government is so dangerous. This government tries to manipulate public opinion. Fortunately, those listening can tell the difference between true and false.

This bill would repeal a provision that gives an offender sentenced to 20 or 25 years the opportunity for a hearing after 15 years. I am talking about a criminal who is sentenced to life in prison with a chance to apply for parole after 15 years.

The current Criminal Code contains the faint hope clause, which gives offenders a chance to apply for parole after 15 years. Parole officers are not the ones who decide. The offender has to apply to a judge and a 12-member jury, a jury of 12 ordinary citizens who must decide, based on time served, evidence of character, and statements from psychiatrists, social workers, experts and so on, whether the individual might be eligible for early parole.

That is what the faint hope clause is about. The Conservatives want to pursue their law and order agenda by repealing this subsection, which is actually working pretty well. That is what defence lawyers told us in committee. The Canadian Bar Association told us that the system works. The association told the Conservatives that the only reason they are trying to pass this kind of bill is that they are trying to set the agenda for the next election.

Some cases are successful. Here is an example. If Bill C-36 is passed, people will not have a chance to apply for parole. This particular case involves a man I know, a lawyer named Michel Dunn from Chicoutimi, with whom I studied at the Chicoutimi seminary and with whom I worked in housekeeping at the Chicoutimi hospital, to pay my way through university. He studied law at Laval University. He got into some shady financial trouble and killed his law partner, Serge McNicoll, when the two were shooting clay pigeons on a Lac-Saint-Jean beach at Saint-Henri-de-Taillon or Sainte-Monique-de-Honfleur, I do not remember exactly.

He was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. After 15 years, he used the faint hope clause to get a hearing, and was paroled. Now, Michel Dunn is an in-reach worker and helps criminals return to society. His is a success story. During his years of incarceration, his behaviour was impeccable. He was surrounded by hardened criminals. He was in a very difficult place, and he helped his fellow inmates during their incarceration.

Indirectly, he also helped our corrections officers who are dedicated to ensuring that inmates can, in some cases, prepare to return to society. That is part of the role of a corrections officer. Two of my colleagues have penitentiaries in their ridings: the Port-Cartier penitentiary, in the riding of the member for Manicouagan, and the La Macaza penitentiary, in the riding of the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

We do not acknowledge our corrections officers often enough. I have read documents from corrections officers who felt as though they were in prison themselves. These are difficult working conditions. There is constant stress. They have to watch over people who have nothing left to lose, people who were convicted of multiple murders. All they have left is to make the lives of everyone inside those walls miserable. I would like to take this opportunity to salute our corrections officers, those who work in both in federal and Quebec prisons.

I would like to share what the Association québécoise des avocats de la défense told us. As the members know, I am a lawyer. I practised for only a year and a half, and I do not consider myself a leading expert in law. One of my friends, Jean Asselin, from Quebec City, is a member of the Association québécoise des avocats de la défense. The legal community is quite discouraged about the attitude of this Conservative government, which is missing the mark and aiming in the wrong direction. The Association québécoise des avocats de la défense said it believes that this bill is merely part of an election strategy and that it promises greater public safety under false pretenses.

On the other hand, although we understand the reactions of certain victims' families who agree with the bill, the fact remains that our decision as to whether or not this bill should pass must be analyzed in an impartial context that is not swayed by emotions.

The Canadian Bar Association opposes Bill C-36 because it believes that the faint hope clause is important in the overall sentencing process, especially for sentencing in murder cases.

I would say that with their separate bills the Conservatives have adopted a cafeteria approach. It is like saying I will have soup today, I will have salad tomorrow. I will have dessert today, I will have fruit salad tomorrow. It is a piecemeal approach that is missing the mark, as I was saying earlier. We have to look at the penal system and the Criminal Code as a whole.

At present the Conservatives' only goal is to find bills that address certain events or circumstances, mostly the ones that have been in the media, and then to take action aimed at being elected.

I will repeat: when you do not agree with them, when you have a different opinion, you are immediately identified as someone who supports criminals, just the way they said we supported the Taliban. Unbelievable.

In closing, because I see that my time is running out and I wish to have some left to answer questions, we believe that the Bloc Québécois is on the right track and, in that sense, we agree with the NDP position. I hope that our Liberal colleagues will listen to reason and not be influenced by the siren songs and the advocates of those opposite, on the Conservative side. I believe that the Liberal party has a progressive and forward-thinking tradition, as its name implies.

I am asking my Liberal colleagues to vote with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to prevent this pointless bill from succeeding at third reading.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was clear and unequivocal that he and his party would be voting against Bill C-36 at third reading. He indicated support for that position from lawyers, primarily criminal defence lawyers, bar associations and correctional officers. He said that he respects correctional officers, as do I. There are many who live in my riding.

He talked about offenders, specifically one who was a successful applicant under the faint hope clause. However, he did not talk about two other groups that need to be talked about in this debate. One group is the victims, or mostly the families of victims, because unfortunately, the actual victims are deceased, and the other group is the public.

When the member stands and votes no to Bill C-36, what will he be saying to the families whose loved ones were the victims of premeditated murder? What will he be saying to the public who does not believe that serving 15 or 16 years in jail is appropriate for premeditated first degree murder?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear: we are talking about crimes and murders punishable by life in prison. As my colleague rightly said, often the murder victim is dead and it is the family that continues to suffer.

When a judge declares a person guilty of murder and sentences him to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, justice has been served to the victim. However, in 15 years of detention, an inmate may display exemplary behaviour. I gave the example of Michel Dunn. In prison, his behaviour was exemplary. He served 15 years in prison. The judge delivered the sentence and punished him for the crime. We do not want to minimize the impact of the crime and say that it was just a murder and nothing serious. We are sensitive to that and that is the reason for life sentences.

The faint hope clause allows an inmate to be released after 15 years of good behaviour. The best evidence that the public is not being punished as well, is that the murderer's lawyer pleads before a judge, who upholds the law, and before a jury of 12 people. This does not happen before an administrative tribunal like the parole board or before a judge alone. The Criminal Code provides that 12 citizens will decide on the release of an individual after 15 years.

In a trial by jury structure, everyday people—just regular folks—are randomly selected from the voters list to make the decision about parole after 15 years. These 12 people are part of the general public.

The two groups my colleague is concerned about are very well served. The inmates serve 15 years instead of 20 or 25 years. While we are at it, perhaps we should add some corporal punishment. A few lashes would not hurt. Let us be serious; they have gone too far.