Debates of Nov. 24th, 2009

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is called by some as the “serious time for the most serious crime act”. The bill was given first reading in the House of Commons on June 5 and was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on June 18.

The bill would amend provisions of the Criminal Code regarding the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to apply for early parole. This is done through the elimination of the so-called faint hope clause by which those given a life sentence for murder or high treason could apply for parole after having served 15 years of their sentence.

In terms of the current law, section 745.6 of the Criminal Code is known informally as the faint hope clause because it provides offenders serving a sentence for high treason or murder with the possibility of parole after having served 15 years where the sentence has been imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for more than 15 years.

Offenders convicted of first degree murder receive life imprisonment as a minimum sentence with the earliest eligibility for parole set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed with the judge setting parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years.

Those serving a life sentence can be released from prison only if granted parole by the National Parole Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of fixed length, for example, 10 or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole, they remain subject for the rest of their lives to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a Correctional Service of Canada parole officer. Parole may be revoked and offenders may be returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole and commit a new offence.

Not all lifers are granted parole. There has been a lot of debate about this over the years and there is an assumption on the part of many that somehow it is automatic. That in fact is not true at all. Some lifers are never released on parole because the risk of their reoffending is too great. One good example is Clifford Olson who was also mentioned yesterday by some of the speakers.

During the years following its initial introduction in 1976, the faint hope provision underwent a number of amendments. I believe there are five criteria for the possible release on parole of someone serving a life sentence. They are as follows:

First, the inmate must have served at least 15 years of a sentence.

Second, an inmate who has been convicted of more than one murder where at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997, at a time when more amendments came into force, may not apply for a review of his or her parole ineligibility period.

Third, to seek a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole, the offender must apply to the chief justice of the province or territory in which his or her conviction took place. The chief justice or a superior court judge designated by the chief justice must first determine whether the applicant has shown there is a reasonable prospect that the application for review will succeed.

This assessment is based on the following criteria: the character of the applicant; the applicant's conduct while serving the sentence; the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted; any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of the hearing under this section; and any other matters the judge considers relevant to the circumstances.

At a later point I will give the statistics as to how many people actually qualify for this. Members will find that it is a very small number indeed, which is probably the way it was intended.

If the application is dismissed for lack of reasonable prospect of success, the chief justice or the judge may set a time for another application not earlier than two years after the dismissal or he or she may declare that the inmate will not be entitled to make another application.

If the chief justice or judge determines that the application has a reasonable prospect of success, a judge will be assigned to hear the matter with a jury. In determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced, the jury should consider the five criteria outlined above. The jury determination to reduce the parole ineligibility period must be unanimous. The victims of the offender's crime may provide information orally or in writing, or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate.

I merely went through all of those stages in an effort to explain to people who may be viewing today that this is not a slam dunk. The Conservative government tries to pretend that it is and perhaps some media stories might suggest this but there is a very rigorous process followed here before anything is done.

If the application is dismissed, the jury may, by a two-thirds majority, either set a time not earlier than two years after the determination when the inmate may make another application, or it may decide that the inmate may not be entitled to make any further applications. In fact, if the jury determines the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, a two-thirds majority of that jury may substitute a lesser number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole than the number then applicable. The number of years without eligibility for parole that the jury may assign could range from 15 to 24 years.

Once permission to apply for early parole has been granted, the inmate must apply to the National Parole Board to obtain parole. Whether or when the inmate is released is decided solely by the board based on a risk assessment, with the protection of the public as the foremost consideration. Board members must also be satisfied that the offender will follow specific conditions which may include restriction of movement, participation in treatment programs and prohibitions on associating with certain people, such as victims' children and convicted criminals.

The faint hope clause review then is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence, which is, of course, the way the government speakers want to make it sound and continue to suggest that is the case. I want to repeat that 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 the jury simply advances the date upon which the offender will be eligible to apply for parole.

In terms of the judicial consideration of the faint hope clause, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of this review is to re-examine a judicial decision in light of changes that have occurred in the applicant's situation since the time of sentencing that might justify lessening the parole ineligibility period.

Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code gives the jury broad discretionary power to consider any matter concerning the offender's situation. The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for the exercise of this discretionary power, namely, that the jury must consider only the applicant's case and must not try the cases of other inmates who may have committed offences after being released on parole. The court has also stated that it is not the jury's role to determine if the existing system of parole is effective.

In terms of the history of the faint hope clause, in July 1976, Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment for Criminal Code offences as opposed to the death penalty for military offences which was not abolished until 1999. The Criminal Code was amended and the categories for murder were changed from capital and non-capital to first and second degree murder.

Mandatory minimum sentences for murderers were introduced. The compromise arrived at between the supporters and opponents of the death penalty was its replacement with long-term imprisonment without parole. The faint hope clause was adopted in 1976 in connection with the abolition of the death penalty.

Speaking in favour of the abolition of the death penalty and the addition of the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code was the solicitor general of the day, who we all remember, Warren Allmand, who said:

I disagree with those who argue that a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years is worse than death. A period of incarceration, with hope of parole, and with the built-in additional incentive for the inmate, and protection for the guards, of a review of that parole eligibility after 15 years is necessarily better than a sentence of death because it removes the possibility of an irreversible error of execution.

I recall the governor of Michigan who was very strong on the death penalty. This was only in the last 10 years. He did an about-face when it was discovered that a huge number of inmates serving sentences in the Michigan jails were falsely convicted. Of course, that was one of the major reasons that the death penalty was overturned back in 1976.

Thus, the faint hope clause was added to the Criminal Code in the hope that it would provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves and, therefore, afford more protection to prison guards. The provision is also said to represent Parliament’s awareness of how long other countries imprison persons convicted of murder before allowing them to apply for parole.

I have some very interesting information on that, which I will get to very soon. For example, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Scotland and Switzerland keep persons convicted of murder in prison for, on average, 15 years before they may be paroled.

Concerns were raised about the faint hope clause in the course of the debate over the abolition of capital punishment. One member of Parliament said that, before going any further with parole provisions, a total reform of the Criminal Code to include rehabilitation, help for crime victims and greater rights for police officers would need to be considered. The same member, Mr. Gauthier, said:

--[a]s long as we persist in shutting up our criminals in the schools of crime that our prisons now are... they will come out even more rebellious, and I would even say even more refined in their future actions.

The first judicial review hearing under the faint hope clause was held in 1987. As of April 13, 2009, 991 offenders were deemed eligible to apply for a judicial review. Court decisions were rendered in 174 of those cases and 144 inmates were declared eligible to apply for earlier parole. Of those, 131 were granted parole, representing over 13% of those who had been deemed eligible to apply for a review of their parole date. That is not a huge number by any stretch. However, if we were to listen to the Conservatives, we would think that the streets were teeming with people in this category.

The most recent published Correctional Service of Canada statistics concerning the fate of prisoners released on parole under the faint hope clause for April 2008 show that of the 125 offenders who had been released by that date, 95 were being actively supervised in the community, 15 had been returned to custody, 11 were deceased, 1 was unlawfully at large and 3 had been deported. These statistics also show that of a total of 22,831 offenders under Correctional Service of Canada jurisdiction at the time, 4,429 or 19.4% were serving life sentences and almost all of them for murder.

In terms of the history of imprisonment for murder in Canada, while the Criminal Code has a single definition of murder and one specification of the punishment that applies throughout Canada, the legislation pertaining to sentencing for murder has changed considerably in the course of the past 50 years.

In November 2002, Correctional Service of Canada published a study on the average time offenders sentenced for murder spent in prison. This study took into account three periods defined by the murder-related legislation that was in force. Pre-1961, persons convicted of murder were automatically sentenced to death. Between 1961 and 1976, capital and non-capital murder designations were in effect and, from 1976 to 2002, first and second-degree murder designations were in effect. So, there have been three different regimes that we have experienced over our lifetime as a country.

Before September 1, 1961, any person convicted of murder in Canada was automatically sentenced to death and the sentence carried out unless the Governor General, acting on the advice of cabinet, those of us who are old enough to remember those days remember the drama involved in each and every one of those cases, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. That is, in fact, what used to happen in the latter years. This was called the royal prerogative of mercy. Historical evidence indicates that the royal prerogative was frequently exercised and operated flexibly.

Between Confederation and 1962, the year of the last execution in Canada, the federal cabinet commuted just under half of all death sentences to life imprisonment. Decisions to execute or spare were made on a case-by-case basis, not according to formal rules of evaluation. The Governor General was not obliged to justify his or her decisions and the deliberations in cabinet were not recorded. In fact, it has been said that clemency decisions were basically a balancing act in which personal prejudices and political expediency often tipped the scales.

Meanwhile, from 1899 to 1959, the Ticket of Leave Act operated on the principle that release was an important part of the rehabilitative process. Under the terms of this act, the Governor General would grant a conditional release to any prisoner serving a term of life imprisonment. Although not applied to death sentences, conditional release later became possible for those sentences commuted to life imprisonment. On February 15, 1959, the proclamation of the Parole Act resulted in the abolition of the Ticket of Leave Act and the new act enshrined the principle of rehabilitation and created the National Parole Board.

That is the beginning of the National Parole Board with which we are all familiar.

Parole was defined as the authority granted to inmates to be at-large during their terms of imprisonment. The legislation set out the new criteria for parole. The Parole Board could release an inmate when he or she had derived the maximum benefit from imprisonment, and when the reform and rehabilitation of the inmate would be aided by parole and when release would not be an undue risk to society.

Under the Parole Act the Parole Board would, at particular times prescribed by the regulations in place, review the case of each inmate serving a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more, whether or not an application had been made or on behalf of the inmate. The inmates sentenced for murder were still eligible for release only under mechanisms such as reduced sentences, pardons and the royal prerogative of mercy.

Amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1961 formally differentiated between death and life sentences. These changes resulted in murder being divided into capital and non-capital murder. With these amendments, capital murder was defined as murder that is planned and deliberate, murder committed in the course of certain crimes of violence by the direct intervention or upon the counselling of the accused, and the murder of a police officer or a prison warden acting in the course of duty resulting in such direct intervention or counselling.

Such murder was still punishable by mandatory hanging except if the accused was under 18 years of age. All other murder referred to as non-capital was punished by life imprisonment. In addition to this amendment, in 1961 an automatic review of all capital convictions by the provincial Court of Appeal was established as well as a full right of appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. This was a review of fact or law alone since the sentence was mandatory and could be reduced only by cabinet.

As outlined above, in July 1976 Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment for Criminal Code offences. The Criminal Code was amended and the previous categories of capital and non-capital murder were replaced with first and second degree murder. Mandatory minimum sentences for murder were introduced with lengthy periods of parole ineligibility.

I am going to have to move ahead because I am not going to finish all my points, but I am sure members are going to be asking me questions so I can get some of this through.

I did promise I would deal with the issue of other countries. In 1999 an international comparison of the average time served in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder showed the average time served in Canada of 28.4 years was actually greater than in all countries surveyed including the United States. The countries we looked at were New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, Belgium, Australia, and Canada had a higher rate than they did.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his history lesson with regard to punishment for those convicted of murder in this country. I listened to him very carefully and the one group he omitted to mention in his chronology was victims and, more appropriately, the families of victims.

My specific question for the member opposite is this. What does he say to the families of victims who come before the justice committee in support of this bill to abolish the faint hope clause, when they maintain that every time the perpetrator of the death of their loved one makes a faint hope clause application and they are re-victimized for a second and third time? What does he say to the families of those victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, for some reason the Conservatives think they have a monopoly on compassion for victims. I have said on many occasions that, in fact, it was the Manitoba government under the NDP that made big improvements to victims' rights in Manitoba and to this day are making improvements to victims' rights.

I can say what Conservatives do. They look at crime in terms of how much good publicity and advertising they can get and what it will do for their polling numbers. Basically, every day to them in the House is just another opportunity to gather information for their television ads for the next election campaign, so they can turn around and misrepresent the positions of opposition members.

We saw what they did on the gun bill. They sent ten percenters into members' ridings that were actually on their side and misrepresented their voting record. We take no lessons from members opposite about sympathy for victims of these crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will get to my question, but first I would like to say a few words.

Personally, I do not think the Conservatives are in a position to say that Bill C-36 takes care of victims at this time. The existing faint hope clause takes care of victims a lot better than Bill C-36 seems to. Indeed, very few people have had access to the faint hope clause or will have access to it. The Conservatives are in no position to say that we do not care about victims. I will probably have the opportunity to come back to this later today.

In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have not received all relevant information regarding the abolition of the death penality in several countries. I would very much like my hon. colleague to finish his speech—albeit quickly—concerning Canada's position on the death penalty with respect to other countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Bloc member's speech yesterday. It was very well thought out and well presented.

Certainly, the government has a history of holding back information, which I am sure it has done in this case, as well.

Just two weeks ago, during the gun registry debate, the government sat on a report which basically gave a very positive view of the gun legislation. It sat on that report for probably two months.

I voted with the member for Portage—Lisgar regarding that bill and the information in that report probably would not have changed my mind even though it was, on balance, sympathetic to the gun registry. However, the fact of the matter is that the government sat on that report for two months. I believe our justice critic had told me yesterday that it was about two months that the government sat on this report, knowing there was a vote coming in the House. It sat on this report until practically the day after the vote was over. That is suppressing information that rightly belongs to the members of this House. That report should have been given out two months in advance.

By the way, it would not have changed my vote. I would have still voted for the member for Portage—Lisgar's motion at the end anyway. However, the government sat on that report when it should not have.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time in this House that we had a discussion that was similar to this was on a motion that came from the Liberals, asking the government not to return to the death penalty. I made an intervention that day that led me to a circumstance where I was at a gathering in Toronto for the wrongfully convicted and got to shake Steven Truscott's hand and meet five other individuals who were wrongfully convicted in Canada.

We in this party, as well as I believe every member in this House, certainly have grave concerns for the well-being of the families involved when a murder or a serious crime is committed against them. On the other side, we have what happens to the people who are, unfortunately, put into the position of being imprisoned when they are innocent.

In my previous life before coming here, I was involved in the labour movement and spoke to many Ontario OPSEU guards who told me that the faint hope clause keeps them alive.

What are the member for Elmwood—Transcona's views about what the prison guards themselves have to say regarding the faint hope clause?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that there is support there. Certainly, there is in all the studies and so on that have been on the faint hope clause. There are other countries in Europe, for example Belgium, that have a similar type of legislation. There is some argument to be made that if there is that very slight chance that a person might get out because of good behaviour after a long period of years, it gives that little glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for prisoners to behave.

If we take all hope and give no hope for people to be released, then we potentially have a very unstable situation in our midst. We have all seen what has happened in the United States when there have been prison riots. People get killed and huge amounts of damage occur. It is not a pretty sight.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification, the member for Elmwood—Transcona should know that if Bill C-36 were to pass, those incarcerated would not be locked up without any possibility of parole. They would just be precluded from applying for early parole, like in the 16th year, but would need to wait for 25 years before they apply. However, the member said that he would not take any lessons from us with respect to victims' rights, so I will give him another opportunity. If the Manitoba government was so keen on victims' rights when he was a part of it, what will he say to the families of victims when he votes no to Bill C-36?

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

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in Manitoba under the Conservatives there were no victims' rights. People's houses would be broken into and they would try to find out the disposition of the case, but they could get no information as to who did it, when the person was going to jail or what the disposition was.

It was the NDP that stepped in and changed those rules over the years so that the victims would have information as to the disposition of their cases, plus counselling. Counselling was set up for the victims, which was very important. That never existed under the grand old Tory years of the past. This is something that the NDP did.

The Conservatives should be paying more attention to the NDP in certain provinces. They should do what works, not just what is good for their coverage on the six o'clock news.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to follow two routes in my speech. One is the bill itself and the other one is the procedures that have been followed in getting the bill before the House.

This is not a trivial issue. We are talking about murderers, people who have been convicted of first degree premeditated murder. There is no one in the House who does not understand that.

We also know that this has been an ongoing debate. In the speech by our colleague from Manitoba we heard some of the history that has led us to the process that is followed in our courts today. It involves the debate around the death penalty and the debate about dealing more appropriately with the families of murder victims than we have done historically and how we best protect our society from future murders, from future violence by removing individuals from society.

That debate inevitably, and I say inevitably because it is true in every democracy that I have looked at, leads us to what is the appropriate period of incarceration in order to achieve the goals of public safety, protection of the public, protection of victims' rights. How do we best achieve that? That is what this debate is about. It is what Bill C-36 and its predecessors is all about.

We often hear government members in the House and in public raise fears in the families of victims, which I think is to their eternal shame in many respects, as opposed to dealing with the facts. We then get to the process that we went through in getting the bill back to the House for third reading.

I want to make this point. There were two types of evidence that came before the justice committee. One was anecdotal, based on perceptions and emotion in many cases. That was the preponderance of what came before committee, anecdotal evidence. There was a little bit of factual evidence. I cannot help but conclude that this process with this bill in particular is faulty. It is faulty more so than with any other crime bill that has come before the House by the current administration since 2006.

The minister appeared before the committee. He was asked a number of questions about how the system works and he was not able to give us factual information. Those are his own words. I am not reading anything into it.

We were told by the minister and his officials from the justice department that the information we were seeking of how the system really works resided with the Department of Public Safety, and specifically within the corrections division of that department.

I had checked to see if Statistics Canada's Juristat had the factual information as to how these sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the faint hope clause worked. It did not gather that information. It also advised me and other members of the committee that it all resided in corrections.

We needed a number of pieces of information. One of the more pertinent pieces of information that the government should have had, given the Conservative Party's long-standing claim of being the champion of victims rights, was how many family members of victims actually used the process. I can say unequivocally today that that information never came before the committee.

With all the research that I have done, with all the enquires that I and other members of committee have made, I can say that information does not exist. We received anecdotal analysis, but in terms of public policy, there was no factual evidence.

We do not know exactly how many applications are made. We do not know factually how many applications are made on the first opportunity, that is, at the 15 year mark of incarceration. We do not know how many applications are made at the 17 year mark, the 19 year mark, or the 20 year mark. We do not know, for instance, at what age people are released under this process. I could go down the list.

We do not have all sorts of information on recidivism, the small number of people who are released and commit another crime and are incarcerated again. And they may not have committed another crime, but they may have breached the terms of parole, which are very stringent.

We do not have any specific answers to that list of items.

In spite of that, the government is going ahead with this bill based entirely on anecdotal evidence at best and almost exclusively on the, and I hate using the word “demagoguery“, but it is accurate, of their speeches as the Conservative Party, as the Alliance Party and as the Reform Party. None of this is based on fact.

A report in 1999 gave us some of the factual answers to the list of items I just enumerated. That information is now 10 years out of date. We know from some of the evidence that things have changed. There have been other amendments. There has been some tightening up of the process by the judiciary and by the Parole Board. We know it has changed somewhat but we do not know how much it has changed in this 10 year period. No additional work has been done. No additional work was done by the prior Liberal administration up to 2006, and the Conservative government has not brought that information up to date.

I will come back later in my speech to how flawed the process was in getting us here. I want to make one other point on something that I find really offensive with this legislation.

When we look behind the government's agenda, we find that this is really about an ongoing attack on our judiciary. In this case, it is also an attack on the jury system. It undermines the credibility of both of these institutions that have stood us in good stead in this country and in the Westminster style of democracy for hundreds of years. Is it perfect? I will be the first one to say that from my years of experience in the courts that it is not perfect, but it is a very solid system. It is a system that is deserving of the respect of the legislators of this chamber. This bill seriously undermines our system.

Under the present system an incarcerated individual convicted of first degree murder has to wait 15 years before he or she can apply to be considered whether he or she can apply for parole. The individual is not applying for parole but is just applying for permission to apply for parole. A judge in the area where the murder was committed has to screen whether or not that individual has a reasonable possibility of convincing a jury that he or she should be allowed to apply for parole.

With this bill, we would be undermining that and taking it away. First of all, we would be making it harder because the test for the screening process will be tougher and, of course, ultimately it will do away with the screening process completely because it will do away with the faint hope clause.

That is bad enough, but we also go right at the jury system and say to the jury in the bill, “We do not trust you, the jury,” the 12 men and women picked from the area or community where the murder was committed. We do not trust the jury to look at the facts and the individual who is applying and to make a determination based on all of the facts whether the person has rehabilitated himself or herself, although it is almost always himself, to the point where we believe that person should be allowed to apply for parole. We do not trust the jury to make that decision any more. We are taking it away from the jury.

That is what the bill would do. It is a serious undermining of the jury system to which every legislator in this House should be paying very clear and solid respect. It would strip both the judge and the jury of that responsibility. It is shameful that we would pass a bill like this.

Following my own and the Bloc's representations on the justice committee, we had arranged for the head of the Correctional Service of Canada to appear before the committee, because we were told by Juristat and the office of the Minister of Justice that correctional service staff were the only ones who could answer factually some of the questions we had raised.

We arranged for Mr. Don Head to appear before the committee. He came before the committee without anything prepared and took questions, including a series of questions from me and the member from the Bloc. In the course of that questioning, it became clear that the information was not compiled in any way. For instance, he could not tell us how many victims' families had asked to make a victim's statement and he could not tell us the specifics of the recidivism rate. He only had generalities that he could talk a bit about to us. He could not tell us at what ages most people were convicted and most individuals got out of prison.

We could go down the list. There were at least a half dozen very specific points that he confirmed the Correctional Service of Canada could give us answers on. He said to me and the member from the Bloc and the chair of the committee that the information could and would be available by the time we got to clause by clause consideration of the bill, scheduled for November 16. Mr. Head appeared before the committee on November 4. It was very clear that he could do it in that period of time.

The week of November 9 was a break week for the House to commemorate Remembrance Day in our ridings, but we were back on November 16. I asked where the information from the Correctional Service of Canada was so that we could do clause by clause in a meaningful way. I was told it had been sent to our offices.

I have subsequently learned that other members of the committee, both from the Bloc and the Liberal Party, with similar questions about where it was were told the same thing. We all jumped to the conclusion that somehow we had missed that information in our offices, and so we went ahead with clause by clause. The bill went through committee stage and, of course, it is now back in the House for report stage and third reading.

After November 16, I again told the clerk that I did not have the information in my office and asked if it could be sent to my office again. Yesterday morning when I arrived at my office, it was not there. We called again at that point and were advised that in fact it had never been sent either to my office or to anyone on the committee, because it had been sent to the office of the Minister of Public Safety and that it had at least been there by November 16.

That information was never provided to the committee. The committee went ahead with clause by clause without all of that factual information, which was our only source of such information.

Yesterday, I was advised by the Conservative deputy House leader that in fact the minister had that information on his desk and had not seen or approved it. I have to say as a sidebar that he has no right to approve it; this is not a situation where he gets to vet that information. If committees are going to work in the House, they must have access to information without it being censored, deleted or affected in any other way by the decisions of the political masters in our legislature.

I still do not have the information. I had wanted it yesterday, as I had expected to speak on this bill then and to use some of data to try to convince the House to vote against this bill. I still do not have it. I was advised by the Conservative deputy House leader yesterday that I might get it in another week.

We know that if that happens, this bill is going to come to a vote before we ever get the information, and I am certainly not going to be able to use it today in my arguments for why we should defeat this bill. The minister should not have done that.

I want to be very clear after having gone through the blues extensively. When Mr. Head was before the committee, he committed to the member for the Bloc and to me that he would have that information for us by the time we got to clause by clause on November 16.

I pushed him about it again just as he was leaving his seat at committee and the Conservative chair of the committee received a commitment from him that it would be back to the committee, not to the minister. There was no discussion of any of this going to the minister, nor should there be. He said it would be back to the committee by November 16. The blues show that.

Something has to happen, as we cannot allow this to continue. Therefore, I move that:

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 with a view to making any amendments which may be called for as a result of information undertaken to be placed before the Committee by departmental officials on November 4th, but which the office of the Minister of Public Safety failed to provide before the Committee considered the Bill at clause-by-clause.

Just to conclude, we cannot—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member has moved an amendment. That concludes his speaking time. The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments on Bill C-36, which is eliminating the faint hope clause.

He referred to this legislation as shameful, but I would suggest that what is shameful is this member and his party's opposition to a bill that will eliminate something that has caused great grief to victims across this country.

The faint hope clause provides convicted first and second degree murderers an opportunity to apply to be released well before their statutory parole dates come due. Victims have been asking that we eliminate this, because it revictimizes them as frequently as every two years after the 15th year of incarceration.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask for your direction. I understood that we were debating the motion to refer the bill back to the committee, not the merits of Bill C-36.

The motion to refer the bill is really a procedural motion, based on the NDP alleging that the minister failed to provide information pertinent to the committee doing its work. It has nothing to do with the merits of the faint hope clause.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for Winnipeg Centre is technically correct. We are now discussing the amendment.

Nonetheless, this is time for questions and comments and the hon. member for Abbotsford has latitude in what he would like to say during his time, of which there are about 10 seconds left.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that what is shameful is the NDP's unwillingness to support legislation that would eliminate the revictimization of victims of crime in this country.

Why does his party not listen to victims but instead focuses all of its efforts on listening to the incarcerated? It is time for a rebalancing of interests here and that we start to listen to the pleas and cries of victims in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is so typical of his party's position.

Number one, the Conservatives have no idea how many victims actually go through this process. They do not.

There is another thing that they always ignore when it comes to victims. In fact, we had a really interesting process at committee. There were two family members of murder victims before the committee. Both of the witnesses, by the way, were arranged by the Conservatives, and one was very strong in support of this legislation. The second man who came forward had lost his daughter to a murder, and just a week or two before appearing at committee, he had been on a panel with one of the individuals who had been released under the faint hope clause. He came to us and was honest. He said that after his experience on the panel with that individual, he was now of the opinion that there are times when the faint hope clause should be in place.

That was one of the families of the victims and there are a lot more like them, because the Conservatives ignore the reality of the dynamics of murder in this country and the world. Eighty per cent of the murders in this country are committed by people who know each other; the murderer knows the victim. It also means that in a lot of these cases, the family members of the murder victim know the perpetrator.

There are a number of cases that we know of--and again, it is anecdotal how many there are—where the families in fact want the individual to be released after 15 years because the latter has rehabilitated himself or herself.

That is where the victims are in this country. They are not simply the stereotype the Conservatives want to portray to the country and to use in photo ops—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has moved a motion that basically recommits the bill back to committee for the latter's consideration of corrections or amendments to specific clauses.

I was astounded by the reasons the member gave for moving this motion. The story is absolutely extraordinary. It is unacceptable and almost contemptuous of Parliament and committees.

I would ask the member if he would simply recap the specific information he was looking for before clause by clause was undertaken, and why it was important for those matters to come forward before the committee made its determination on amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have to do that from the vantage point of both what I saw and what my colleague from the Bloc saw. We were trying to answers on how often and how many times it was used on the very first occasion. The anecdotal evidence said that it was not very often at all.

How often was it granted on the first application? According to our best information, which is again very sorely lacking, it was rarely ever granted, but we did not have a factual answer to that. We wanted to know at what age people would get out and at what age they went in. That information was to be available.

In particular, we wanted to have information about recidivism. Of those individuals who did get out, how many applied and how many got out? We knew they were very large numbers, and I feel like I am in a court, but the best estimate was it was less than 25% of whoever applied for the first 25 years. The average person who committed murder in our country stayed in custody for 28.5 years. We were able to get that information, but it was probably out of date because it was from the 1999 study. Therefore, we wanted that statistic brought up to date.

However, on recidivism, we wanted to know how many were re-incarcerated and what happened to them. There were very little specifics, but our best determination was only one potentially violent crime was committed. We did not have that kind of detail, but we wanted it. The corrections division had it, but we never received it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who does extraordinary work at the committee and who raised this point. We need this information. Obviously, the Bloc will support this amendment.

I dare not say that those who have the information forgot to send it to us, I would say something else, but I will refrain because it might not seem very parliamentary.

How could that information, which someone may have deliberately forgotten to forward to us, change the support certain political parties or members of certain political parties might have for this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue knows, it is really the Liberals' opinion of this bill that we are trying to change. What is more, in the information we believe we will receive, there is almost nothing about those who were authorized by the judge and jury to apply for parole in order to be released from prison before 25 years.

This is directed to the Liberals. I think they have enough integrity to review this information, to change their minds and perhaps support our position and vote against this bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer by profession, but I am a member of Parliament and most members of Parliament are not lawyers. They rely very heavily on the training and back ground of those who are legally trained to inform us, to advise us of the facts and to give us a foundation in which we can make an informed decision as to how we may address certain matters of a legal nature.

We are debating a bill, the subject matter of which has come up a number of times in private members' bills, particularly since I have been here. Since 1993, I think it has been raised at least four times. It is a matter that has always raised an argument that borders on emotional response rather than substantive response based on fact.

There is no doubt in my mind that unless one has been there, one does not know what it is like to lose a loved one in a violent crime. There is probably very little that can be done to change the memory, the pain and the suffering of the families and close friends of victims of violent crime, of murder.

While I was not totally aware of the amendment that was moved but I understand better now why it was, but one of the things I did to prepare myself for today was to look back at some of the old debate and some of the history as well as what others had said, particularly at committee, at whom we would tend to maybe look.

I saw, for instance, the Elizabeth Fry Society. One of the questions I had asked it, and I raised the question before, was the fact that all cases were not the same. I know the example of Clifford Olson has been raised many times in this place on this argument. I believe Clifford Olson actually is eligible to apply for parole, and I believe he has applied. I do not know the details in terms of whether he was declared a dangerous offender, but I think it was overturned.

It does not matter. In terms of debate in this place and trying to influence the public's impressions about what is going on here, Clifford Olson is probably a very good example to use if we are in favour of getting rid of the faint hope clause so no one like him ever gets out of jail, period, or any same or similar serial killer.

I do not think serial killers can apply under the faint hope clause, but there is some judgment. I will yield to whomever raised it in debate yesterday. Is it possible that It may very well have been misinformation? That is why I have raised it because there is no possibility that Clifford Olson will get out under the faint hope clause.

I asked people what they thought about it. I asked some of my constituents about this as well. The matter was dealt with last June at second reading and then it went to committee. On November 16, it finished at committee and was reported to the House on November 18, and here we are immediately. This is another switch the channel week where we go to justice bills. Here we are on C-36.

When I asked some of the constituents, they were not very familiar with the faint hope clause. In fact, they were not very familiar with a life sentence. I have the feeling that the majority of Canadians do not understand sentencing, parole, faint hope, conditional sentencing and house arrest. Many terms are floated around and people have busy lives.

However, when we get around to things like capital punishment or in this case, the faint hope clause, everyone has an opinion, but that opinion is based on whatever knowledge they happen to have and whatever interpretation they happen to be given.

When people commit serious crimes and are sentenced to life, that is a life sentence for the rest of their lives. However, there is a proviso that after 25 years, they can apply for parole. As the previous speaker said, for those persons who are convicted of murder, the average sentence served is 28.5 years, I believe. Ostensibly it means a lot of people are in there a lot longer than 25 years. Some people in fact do get out at 25 years, so there must be quite a range depending on who it is.

After 25 years, offenders are automatically eligible to apply for parole. In Bill C-36 we are talking about faint hope clause, which says that after 15 years there is a process that they can go through in which they can apply for early parole, but it will be a very stringent process.

Yesterday in debate I thought the member for Halifax had a very tight description, and I want to share it with the House, about the process of the faint hope clause, which is important to understand. She is a lawyer and says that the amendment to the Criminal Code, as recommended by Bill C-36, is for the most serious crimes. It would amend provisions with regard to the rights of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole, She identified it colloquially as the faint hope clause.

She said that it provided offenders with the possibility of obtaining parole after 15 years of a sentence for murder where the sentence was life without eligibility for parole for more than 15 years. She went on to say that offenders convicted of first degree murder served life as a minimum sentence, with the first parole eligibility set at 25 years, which is what I indicated. For offenders convicted of second degree murder or a mandatory sentence of life is also imposed, but the judge can set parole eligibility at any point between 10 and 25 years. That may involve murder. Those who are serving a life sentence can be released from prison if the parole is granted by the Parole Board.

Inmates that are granted parole will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of a parole and supervision of a Correctional Service parole officer, et cetera. There are conditions of being on parole. Break parole and they can be right back in jail and then they have to serve their time.

There was no disagreement with the description of the process that someone had to go through under the faint hope clause to get parole and to be considered after 15 years. The process is so rigorous that very few people apply at 15 years. There is clearly an assessment of whether they have been rehabilitated, or have been model prisoners, or there were victim impact issues, or there were other exasperating circumstances. There are many considerations. It is a complicated, very rigorous process that goes on with regard to giving consideration.

Therefore, it surprised me to hear the debate. One could see that the proponents of Bill C-36 wanted to eliminate this opportunity for early consideration of parole at 15 years from the automatic 25 years because of the victims. They want to deal with victims and forget about who did the crime. We have heard this a lot. If one does the crime, one does the time.

Everybody in Canada should know that, based on the statistics, someone who commits murder in our country is eventually going to be back on the streets. That is the reason why we have a system that provides for rehabilitation and early release under parole programs of inmates if things have gone well, if they understand, if they have been repentant of their crime, and if all of those goods things that everybody would expect make this a problem that should not and probably would not recur.

As the previous speaker said, 80% of these severe and most serious of crimes such as murder are committed by persons who know the person they kill. As a matter of fact, a large proportion of those are family members killing other family members and close friends killing close friends. These are people that they know. These are not drug pushers who are out there with guns, shooting people, stealing and robbing banks and things like that. Of these criminals, 80% are people who knew their victim.

I do not think that most Canadians would suggest that these 80% would be the kinds of persons that would go and commit a second murder. It is possible, but is it probable? There is an argument about some cases where people are going to prison for life and they are going to be there for at least 25 years before they get the first chance to even consider getting out. It may even be longer than that and that is the way it is going to be. All the faint hope clause does is say that there are some circumstances in which having the eligibility for parole after 15 years may be reasonable, may not be a risk to society, and may be in the public interest.

What about the victims? The victims have a say in the process. The courts and judges have a say. It has to be unanimous. I will not go through the process because, quite frankly, I do not know it in all the glorious detail. However, it is an extremely onerous process to go through to be able to convince the judges that a person would merit consideration for early parole. It is not Clifford Olson. It is not going to happen.

I got here and heard the motion of recommital to committee of Bill C-36 and to reconsider or amend clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The member who made the motion to recommit has advised the House that information was requested with regard to statistics and other related information about how often the faint hope clause was used, how many people applied for early parole on their first opportunity at 15 years, how many were granted parole on their first attempt, the age at which they got out, and on recidivism rates, which is a very significant issue to handle when dealing with matters of parole. While debating other bills, we heard that people under conditional sentencing or house arrest were less likely to reoffend than people who had to serve the entire sentence in jail and crime school.

We have that evidence, so it does not surprise me that this particular member asked for that information and the other parties concurred that this is information we should have. Tell us what is happening. How often has it happened? How successful has it been? Have there been problems? What has the victim reaction been?

I read one of the cases the Elizabeth Fry Society provided when it appeared before the committee. A severely abused woman killed her husband and refused to apply for the faint hope clause because it was her children who would have to attend the process and she did not want her children to be exposed to it. She would rather stay in jail and serve all of her time because she loved and cared for her children.

There are a number of cases. There was another one I will refer to. The last figures obtained, and no, I will not go there because it is a little too long. However, suffice it to say, I will refer members to the testimony of the Elizabeth Fry Society, which has been following this since it became a periodic matter before the House.

We second, as the full chamber, to our committees the mandate under the Standing Orders to do this work. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has been bombarded with a series of bills, which should not have been the case if the government had used the omnibus bill approach to many of these bills, so that the committee would not be tied up so long and the same witnesses would not have to return.

The government has used this as a tactic. It has used it as a tactic to basically clog up the committee so bills would not go through very quickly, which means it could continue to talk about the same things over and over again. It could do a prorogation, go into a new session of Parliament, reintroduce the bills in a slightly different form and not take advantage of the work that has been done.

This particular case almost requires an investigation, I would say, simply from the standpoint that the committee asked for information which, on its face, is very relevant to the consideration of the bill before us.

Now the committee has reported this bill back with some amendments. However, how many amendments may have taken place at the committee stage or how many report stage motions would have been put forward based on the new information the committee could have received, and how is it possible that communications could be so fouled up that members who asked for information, and were told was accessible did not get the information they asked for?

Members of Parliament have rights. Those rights have been violated. That is fundamentally the reason why the member had to move the amendment. He and the committee could not do the job in the best fashion they wanted to because the information asked for was being denied to the member, directly or indirectly.

That is worse than most things that happen in this place. It is a breach of the member's rights, the committee's rights, and all of us collectively because we seconded, through the Standing Orders, the responsibility to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to look at these justice bills. Why does it take a member having to rise in this place and say he has no choice but to revert this bill back to committee?

I am not even sure that is going to resolve the breach of the member's rights. I am also not sure whether there should be a motion that there be a full investigation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or some other ad hoc committee to find out what happened in this case. It is outrageous and I congratulate the member for raising it with all hon. members.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South has been in the chamber considerably longer than I have and I know he chairs a committee. Does he not believe that the more proper course of conduct for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh would have been to raise it at clause-by-clause study? If the member for Windsor—Tecumseh somehow felt prejudiced by the lack of information he alleges he was promised, should he not have raised it at clause-by-clause and ask that it be adjourned until that information was available rather than raising it today at third reading?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has spoken for himself on this matter. The information was requested. The member was assured it was being transmitted and he took the word of those who were transmitting it to him. But it also appears that there is an allegation here with which he probably was not aware of, and that is that a minister of the Crown had the information and did not pass it on to the members. That is new information and that makes it even more critical that the matter be dealt with. Those are the issues.

Could he have mitigated it? The other committee members knew they were dealing with Bill C-36, a bill to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate the faint hope clause, not an inconsequential bill. Maybe the member should ask, why did the committee as a whole not say it would not move forward with clause-by-clause or complete its consideration until it received basic information that clearly was essential to the consideration of Bill C-36?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague and I appreciate what he said, but I have a question for him.

The hon. member for Windsor West and I made a request, but we have not received a response. That is why we are voting in favour of the amendment.

Let us assume that the responses will say something like this: that there was very little recidivism; and criminals who were released under very strict conditions in accordance with the faint hope clause did not reoffend, or not very often. I will probably have a chance to come back to that in the next few minutes.

How is it that the Liberal Party, which supported the faint hope clause, is about to vote in favour of a bill that will eliminate an inmate's faint hope of rehabilitating himself?