Debates of Feb. 14th, 2011

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a closure motion, which usually occurs when there is some urgency, an emergency or a critical element of the government's agenda. It appears that for whatever reason the government will succeed in the closure motion in order to rush through Bill C-59, about which not a member in the House, possibly not even a member in the government, knows what the cost will be. The government does not have a clue.

I am told, though I do not know this for a fact, that it may affect 900 people. If we increase the incarceration of 900 people by even a year, that is an additional $100,000 that taxpayers must pay to support that incarceration.

Does the hon. member for Brampton West have any idea what the cost of the bill might be?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The Conservatives have refused to provide any financial statistics on the cost of the bill. We can do the math and guesstimate. If we estimate approximately $100,000 per year per individual, factoring in how many would be affected and have to stay in jail longer, it would be quite the substantial sum.

The issue of financial disclosure has gone on for quite some time. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we will have to spend at least $5 billion more just on prisons. All of this information is speculative right now because the Conservatives will not provide it. Tomorrow when the committee studies the bill for the allotted four hours, because of closure, we will ask the question of what this will cost.

This is not a surprise to the government. Members want to know. It should bring the information tomorrow. It should not tell us that it does not have it. It has invoked closure and it should bring the information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the opposition parties have asked the government for a costing of this crime bill and others. The sad part about it is the Conservative government does not care what the cost is. Over and over again, it has said that it does not matter what it costs, that it simply wants the law changed.

The fact is the Conservatives' ideological cousins in the United States, led by Newt Gingrich, have actually come around. He has been working actively with other right-wing Republicans and Democrats in the states of Texas and South Carolina to do things that are smart on crime. They have cut the costs of running prisons and are operating a much more sensible system there.

The member is probably aware of Newt Gingrich's January 7 article. Would he expand on that?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to spend what is required as a Canadian society to protect our citizens. There is no issue about that. I heard one of my Conservative colleagues say that we cannot put a cost on safety, and that is right. However, we cannot pay enough for wisdom and common sense, and that is sorely lacking by the government on this criminal justice legislation.

We should know how much this will cost. We should know the effects of changing the law. We have to identify a problem and then seek a rational way to solve it. We do not simply invoke closure, panic and change an entire system not knowing what the consequences might be. That is wholly irresponsible. If this is so urgent, it should not have defeated the Liberal amendments last fall in the justice committee, which would have solved this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Brampton West on his well-delivered speech. I know he thinks about these things very carefully.

Does the member not agree that those who commit white collar crime and deprive victims of their life savings ought to be treated similarly to violent criminals and therefore not have more or less automatic parole based on the parole board's current criteria where early release can only be denied if there is a suspicion the person might commit another serious violent offence?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my friend and we work well together on the public safety committee.

He is absolutely correct that the current system has not been fixed by the government to make it tough enough on serious white collar criminals. I mentioned certain ways that could have been done, such as increasing sentences and putting mandatory restitution orders in place. I would encourage the government to put those steps in place.

It is disappointing that the only thing the government can come up with at present is an en masse reduction of the one-sixth for everybody. The government is not being sophisticated enough in its analysis. It should be focusing on the most serious criminals and targeting them. I would support that sort of analysis.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very intrigued by the hon. member's somewhat amateur calculations. I am trying to understand where these figures of 900 people and $100,000 are coming from. If we assume that these are non-violent prisoners, then they will be put in minimum security prisons because it costs less. If they are non-violent, as he said, surely they will be granted day parole six months before they have served one-third of their sentence. As a result, they will not be in prison for even a year.

I am trying to understand where these figures of $100,000 and 900 people are coming from. If I multiply $100,000 by 900, then I get $90 million. The figure is more than $90 million for Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix. It is $100 million for Vincent Lacroix alone.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point in terms of why closure is inappropriate and why this bill is being rushed through in an irresponsible manner.

My colleague from the Bloc does not know how many people this is going to affect. Estimates have been thrown around. One of our other colleagues estimated 900, but I do not know. That is the point. We have to find this out. The government is not telling anybody and yet it has invoked closure and is trying to pass this law in an irresponsible manner.

In terms of what this will cost, we have estimates, and they are only estimates, of anywhere from $77,000 to over $100,000 based on each prisoner. We do not know how many people this would encompass. That is the point. We need to have full information. Until that occurs, we cannot make reasoned decisions on behalf of Canadians.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in favour of the motion regarding Bill C-59, which we are hopeful will be passed into law as soon as possible.

Accelerated parole review has been the subject of a great deal of media coverage in recent months. It has also been the subject of a number of debates by parliamentarians and Canadians alike.

As hon. members know, the overwhelming consequences to the victims of white collar crimes, such as fraud, have become an issue all too familiar for Canadians and their families. Canadians have been quite clear and consistent in asking that the government take immediate action to protect the rights of the victims of these crimes and to make certain that offenders convicted of white collar crimes are held accountable for their actions. This would be possible with the passage of this bill.

It was not long ago that such crimes as fraud were considered to be victimless, as many of these crimes were depicted to occur against government, institutions and Canada's business community. This is no longer the view today. Canadians are continually being reminded of the devastating financial consequences that these crimes can bring to them and to people they know and love.

I believe I am speaking for most Canadians when I say that we can no longer continue to be harmed by these acts. Many lives are filled with the agony of financial ruin, and hopes for a brighter future are dashed. For many Canadian victims, this has become the reality as they most often never return to the position where they were before.

The current parole system in Canada allows for those incarcerated for white collar crimes to be eligible for release after serving one-sixth of their sentence.

Victims of crime deserve our support. This is why we have been given the opportunity to change this with Bill C-59.

I will speak briefly about our government's commitment to victims of crime and our ambitious agenda with regard to justice and tackling crime.

The crimes that our citizens are being faced with are very real. We, in turn, must commit to protecting their rights by listening and reacting. This has been one of our consistent priorities since we first were elected in 2006. I am happy to report that we have taken action in a number of areas.

The impact of crime on the lives of individuals, their households and the prosperity of Canadian communities is enormous. That is why we have taken a number of measures to ensure victims' rights are given the prominence and resources they deserve.

One of our first actions upon taking office in 2006 was to introduce the federal victims strategy. Since then, the government has committed over $50 million to this strategy.

An independent resource for victims, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, was created as one of our first steps toward this endeavour.

Public Safety Canada manages the National Office for Victims, which plays a vital role in providing victims with an opportunity to voice their views in the corrections and conditional release process. It also does much more than that. It helps victims and their families by providing them with information and services they need during what is likely to be a very trying time in their lives.

The Policy Centre for Victim Issues, which is part of the Department of Justice, also plays a critical role in improving the experience of victims of crime in the criminal justice system. It helps victims and their families understand their role in the criminal justice system and the laws, services and assistance available to support them.

The policy centre ensures that the perspectives of victims will be fully considered when relevant federal laws and policies are developed. It also aims to increase awareness both within Canada and internationally about the needs of victims of crime and effective approaches to respond to those needs.

The online victim services directory found on the website of the Department of Justice is an example that our government has gone above and beyond to meet the needs of victims by helping them obtain the services they require.

The directory's numerous objectives include helping service providers, victims and individuals locate services for victims of crime across Canada and allowing victims to determine which services they may require. The directory also acts as a link between organizations and victims with a view toward helping all individuals access victim services. This is how we are ensuring that victims are being heard and that they remain a priority in the justice system.

As I mentioned earlier, our government has made tackling crime and protecting the safety of Canadians one of our chief priorities since being elected in 2006. As such, we have tabled and passed a number of pieces of legislation that are tough on crime with a view to making our streets and citizens safer.

We have passed two pieces of legislation in particular that speak directly to cracking down on violent gun crime and protecting Canadians from the very serious and increasingly complex issues of identity fraud and identity theft.

The government has also introduced legislation that allows victims to have a stronger voice in Canada's parole process. Our legislation will give victims the right not only to attend, but to speak at hearings presided over by the Parole Board of Canada. It will also offer more rigour and structure in the parole hearing process by, in most cases, precluding offenders from withdrawing their parole applications less than two weeks before a scheduled hearing.

Our government has delivered a bill that victims of crime have asked for, one which our government believes they deserve. Bill C-59 is another step in our government's long-standing belief that victims matter and that their voices should be heard.

It is important to note that victims of non-violent white collar crimes are often angry or disillusioned to learn that the perpetrators of those crimes are eligible for release relatively soon after they begin serving their sentence. In the current model of accelerated parole review, the Parole Board of Canada has limited discretion unless it believes that the offender in question is likely to commit a violent offence. In practical terms, that means someone who is convicted of a white collar crime is not assessed for parole using the same criteria as for other serious offenders. This is not just, in our government's view. We believe it does not properly serve victims of these often debilitating crimes.

I am sure all Canadians would agree that they would like to see the justice system prevail. Our government believes that Bill C-59 is an important step toward making that a reality.

The changes proposed by our government would put offenders who commit fraud and other white collar crimes on the same playing field as other offenders. Their eligibility for regular day parole review would commence six months prior to full parole eligibility, and full parole review after serving one-third of their sentence.

The message we are trying to send with this legislation is that offenders should be held accountable for their actions and that victims' interests should be heard.

It is imperative that we work together to ensure that the changes our government is proposing become law as soon as possible so that justice may be served.

In conclusion, I urge all hon. members to vote in favour of this motion, and by extension, stand up for the victims of white collar crime.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple and short and I would like a detailed, specific answer please.

If this legislation is passed, exactly how much will it cost Canadian taxpayers?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the underlying issue really is the cost to the victims. The victims are the main priority of this government. We have introduced many pieces of legislation which the NDP, Liberal and Bloc members always stall in committee. We have to get this bill passed to work for the victims that need it.

For instance, I have heard stories where the victims of these white collar crimes are not reporting them because they are afraid or embarrassed. The underlying issues have to be addressed. If the opposition will not help this bill to proceed, we will not be able to respect the rights of the victims. We have to respect them.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of the member in this chamber, and I am a bit surprised, because he is actually engaging in substantive debate around the bill to which the time allocation motion applies. However, what is really before us in the House today is the time allocation motion itself and the government cutting off the amount of time for debate on the bill.

We should not be debating the merits of the bill itself at all, yet I just heard the member say that all kinds of crime bills have been stalled at committee.

Let me give the House a number of the bills that have now passed through the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10. Can the member really suggest that the crime agenda of the government is being stalled?

Some of us would argue they are the only bills we have been dealing with in the House. I wish the member would return to what we are really debating here tonight, and that is the time allocation motion, not the substance of the government's crime agenda.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic hearing the NDP. NDP members stand and fight every crime bill we bring forward to the House. They vote against every one of them. That is a crying shame.

Coming from a law enforcement background, I would think New Democrats would have more sympathy for the victims, not the criminals. It is very disheartening. The bill came forward in October 2010. What is the NDP's position? Let us move the bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate the question of the member for Brampton West, to which he did not get an answer. This is a pretty simple question. The Conservatives will increase the time that people spend in jail. There is a good argument to be made that in some instances it is a really good idea, but what will it cost? It is very simple. It is $100,000 a year to keep somebody in jail. What is the cost of C-59? It is a simple question to which we are asking for a simple answer, not tap dancing, not little heart-rending victim stories, just tell us the number.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what I hear is the Liberals do not want to respect the victims. It is always about the cost of the criminals. It is time for the government to stand up and protect the rights of the victims.

Listening to the members opposite, they are so worried about the cost. Let us look at the cost to the victims: the loss of the family income, loss of their retirement, loss of family net worth where people were actually so distraught they were suicidal. Let us look at those issues.

All the Liberals are worried about is the criminals.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to offer my support for the motion concerning Bill C-59. I thank the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for sharing his time with me.

I am asking all hon. members to also demonstrate their commitment to ensuring the safety of our communities by making certain that we pass Bill C-59 into law as quickly as possible.

The motion before us today will ensure that offenders are held accountable for the crimes they commit.

Not everyone is aware that the current system of accelerated parole review allows people convicted of non-violent offences to apply for day parole after serving a mere one-sixth of their sentence and full parole after serving only one-third. As a defence lawyer for many years, I can assure the House that even lawyers realize this makes it very difficult to take some Canadian sentences seriously. For example, it means that a white collar fraud criminal or a drug dealer who has been sentenced to 12 years can be released on day parole in only two years and fully paroled at just four years out of the original 12 year sentence.

This demands an answer to an important question. Are we considering the rights of victims in accelerated parole reviews? The answer is a resounding no. Parole in such cases is expedited. Unless the Parole Board has reasonable grounds to believe that an offender will commit a violent offence it must by law release the convicted criminal into the community after serving only one-sixth of his or her sentence.

The current accelerated parole review is completed on paper only. Contrast that with regular parole reviews normally done through an in person hearing.

I am sure that hon. members here can agree that when evaluating a convicted criminal's eligibility for parole it is crucial to properly assess the offender. Accelerated parole review actually limits and even prevents a proper assessment.

The victims of these so-called white collar crimes simply want justice. Victims may wonder how much justice there is in Canada after watching these offenders released on full parole after serving only one-third of their sentence. Police services and victims groups have been clear that the conditional release system must be strengthened so that it better protects Canadian communities and better reflects victim expectations.

A crime is a crime whether it was committed with or without physical violence. Crimes such as fraud have sometimes been viewed as victimless since they are often perpetrated against large organizations, corporations or even the government. This is no longer the case. More and more we are hearing about cases of fraudulent white collar crimes committed against individual Canadians. I am sure many hon. members have family members, co-workers or friends who have been hurt by these crimes.

Although these crimes may have been committed without physical violence, the pain and suffering that is experienced as a result of personal fraud wreaks its own form of violence. Many lives have been ruined. In some cases, widows have lost their entire life savings. I am speaking for them. Families have been broken apart by the financial stress occurring as a result of having lost everything. I am speaking for them. Others have had their identity stolen and have suffered the arduous battle of reclaiming their proper identity. In addition to experiencing financial loss due to identity fraud, these victims often have difficulty obtaining credit or restoring their good name. I am speaking for them.

White collar crime often leaves victims experiencing feelings of humiliation for having been deceived. Sadly, it often leads to a myriad of emotional, psychological and even physical ailments. Police associations, victim advocates and ordinary Canadians have been very clear. They want the conditional release system strengthened so that it better protects our communities.

We must take action now, today. We must work quickly to pass Bill C-59. That is what the motion today will achieve for victims. By supporting Bill C-59, we are showing our support for the countless Canadians who have been hurt by these crimes.

Our government is working to ensure that the protection of society is the top priority in all of our decisions. This includes helping victims of crime and making sure that victims' needs are at the centre of our agenda. Our government is making victims' rights a priority. There are already numerous programs in place. We have delivered many measures to ensure that victims' voices are heard and that their needs are met.

Public Safety Canada's National Office for Victims, for example, is a central resource for victims who have concerns about offenders and questions about the federal correctional and Canadian justice systems. The office also provides input on policy and legislative initiatives. It provides education about victims' issues for members of the criminal justice system.

Also, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to ensure the federal government meets its responsibilities to persons hurt by crime. Victims can contact the office to learn more about their rights and the services available to them. They can make a complaint about any federal agency or legislation dealing with victims of crime. The ombudsman also ensures that policy makers and other criminal justice personnel are aware of victims' needs. She identifies important issues and trends that may negatively impact victims.

One of our government's first actions upon taking office in 2006 was to introduce the federal victims strategy. Since then, the government has committed substantial funding to support this strategy. We have cracked down on organized crime, including drug crime, with tougher sentences and we passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act to better protect 14 and 15-year-old victims.

In addition, we are delivering support to victims of crime directly by giving access to employment insurance benefits for family members of victims of crime. We established the right for unpaid leave for workers in federally-regulated industries. We are making the victim surcharge mandatory to better fund victim services.

I could go on and on as there are many more initiatives and actions that this government is delivering to put victims' rights at the forefront of the justice system. Bill C-59 is delivering on the changes that victims of crime have been asking for, changes that are long overdue.

The amendments being proposed would ensure that offenders who commit fraud and other so-called white collar crimes are sentenced to serve time in custody that adequately reflects the seriousness and consequences of their crime. Why would any sensible parliamentarian oppose that?

All offenders would be treated equally, regardless of the nature of their crimes. As such, eligibility for day parole would occur six months prior to full parole eligibility and full parole review still after serving only one-third of their sentences. This is a very mild change, but it is a change that sends a message loud and clear that our government is committed to ensuring that our justice and corrections systems do not put the rights of offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens. We will continue tackling crime and standing up for those who have been victimized.

I urge all hon. members today to support the motion being debated. Let us all show that we are listening to what Canadians want. Let us all stand up for victims' rights. If we take action now to fix the problem in the parole system that allows for the early release of convicted criminals, we can see to it that victims of fraud see true justice.

Let us all work together to address the concerns of ordinary Canadians and ensure that these important changes receive quick passage into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that there is some urgency to this.

The Liberal Party asked for this legislation two years ago but the government did not see fit to do anything about it. Then there was Bill C-21, where the Liberal Party proposed an amendment along exactly the same lines as the hon. member is talking about, and that was killed by the government. Now we have this bill which, apparently, is quite urgent. We will have to run this debate through and have virtually no conversation.

I will ask the same question that I asked the previous speakers. Does the hon. member have any idea whatsoever as to how much this bill will cost?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say how encouraged I am to hear from the Liberal member opposite that this bill is something that the Liberal Party has been waiting for and that he considers to be long overdue. I can only surmise from that, that he and his colleagues intend to agree with me and will support this motion.

As to the question of cost, I wonder how much it is worth to the member who asked that question to protect victims' rights and to give them a sense of justice in this country. If I knew what price my friend and colleague opposite was asking, I would do everything possible to ensure that we could do it within the price he is asking.

As it is, I am happy to say that I do not think the victims themselves would possibly countenance the kind of question that my friend is asking about what price they would pay to assure them this peace of mind.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague because I think he actually just agreed with the NDP position on the motion that is before us here today.

The motion before us today is about whether we have adequate time to debate this justice bill. It is a guillotine motion. It is a time allocation motion that says that the government will cut off the amount of time that members have to debate Bill C-59.

Clearly the member agrees with us here on the NDP side of the House that there is not enough time because he spent his entire 10 minutes talking about the bill itself, not about the motion that is before us here today. He repeatedly talked about the need for urgent action to help victims.

I have been here for five years and that member has been on the government side of the House for five years and suddenly today, this week, this matter is urgent. Where were those members five years ago? They have had ample opportunity to bring this bill forward.

Finally, I would like to remind members that it is our responsibility in a system of responsible government to hold the government to account and to look into the public spending of funds, and yet at every opportunity the government has made that impossible.

The finance committee asked about the detailed costing of justice bills, about analysis and projections, including assumptions, and despite the fact that such a motion passed duly in the finance committee, the government has refused to provide that costing information. It is not making it possible for us to do our job.

I want the member to comment on that and on whether he agrees that we do need more time to do due diligence which Canadians have sent us here to undertake on their behalf.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what I perceive to be a compliment paid to me by my friend in that she thinks I have been here for five years. I am glad that my performance in the House reflects that but the fact is that I was not here five years ago. So, regretfully, I am dealing with this bill as it comes to me.

As to why I was able to spend 10 minutes talking about things other than the closure motion and talking about other things that our government has done for victims, it is because the issue here is really very simple. Quite frankly, we did not even need all afternoon today to talk about it. We could have voted on this earlier today and passed what is a crystal clear bill to protect victims.

I want to enlighten my friend a little bit about the fact that her colleague on the environment committee, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, helped to push through a coalition closure on debate in the environment committee which allows each Conservative member one and a half minutes to speak to each clause. She thinks that is too long. I am sure she will agree that the amount of time we are giving to this debate this afternoon is more than adequate.

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

Mr. Speaker, as opposed to everyone on the government side, I will actually speak to what the debate is about right now, which is about shutting down the democratic process in this House by limiting the amount of time that we are allowed to consider a significant issue.

I do not think any party is claiming that this is not a significant issue. It is a significant issue and one that probably should have been dealt with four or five years ago when the Conservatives first formed government.

What we have before us is an undemocratic shut down of debate. The government wants to shove a bill through the House with nowhere near enough time to deal with the facts and to make proper public policy. That is offensive to the democratic process. Speaking as the NDP justice critic and as a lawyer, it is particularly offensive for the government to force a bill through in this manner when we are dealing with criminal justice issues and the question of people's liberty.

What is the government doing? This motion will obviously pass later today because of the holy coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc, which will be more than enough members to get it through.

I am being reminded that I forgot to tell the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

This is what will happen. The government will call the bill tomorrow and we will have one day of debate. Allowing for question period and routine proceedings, that will amount to maybe four hours of debate or maybe even a bit less than that. At 5:15 p.m. tomorrow, the bill will be put to a vote. We will have one day of debate at second reading and then the bill will immediately be sent over to committee. The committee will be given until 11 o'clock tomorrow evening to report the bill back to the House. If my math is correct, the committee will have less than five hours to bring forth witnesses, debate the issues, make any amendments and go through the bill clause by clause.

We are talking about a criminal justice bill that would affect the liberty of people in this country and yet debate will be limited.

Then, and I always find this one really cute, if amendments are not approved at committee stage, members will have until 3 a.m., four more hours, to get proposed amendments to the clerk. I do not know who at the Table has been designated to be here until 3 a.m. on Wednesday morning but he or she will need to be because I assume we will have amendments during that period of time.

Wednesday is considered a half day given that the caucus meets on Wednesday morning. The bill will be called again in the afternoon and, by the end of that day, the debate on both report stage and third reading must be completed. A vote will be held that evening and, assuming the coalition will stick together, the bill will pass and be on its way to the Senate where the unelected, Conservative dominated, not responsible, other than to the Prime Minister, Senate will pass the bill and it will become law. The Conservatives have been in office for five years and they will shove the bill through.

We have had one election that was contrary to their laws and two prorogations during that period of time. We had the justice committee tied up for a very long period of time due to the shenanigans of the chair. The justice committee went a whole year without sitting because of the election, the prorogation and the shenanigans of the chair.

When we are talking about the importance of timeliness here, where have the Conservatives been? What they have been doing is what they have done with so many other crime bills. They always talk about protecting the victims but the victims were there five years ago, fours years ago, three years ago, two years ago and last year. When did we see this bill? The first time we saw it was about five or six months ago

There is another thing with regard to timeliness. On two different occasions, the Bloc Québécois introduced a private member's bill seeking unanimous consent. On those two occasions, the Conservative government refused to give unanimous consent. Where were the Conservatives then on protecting the victims? They were sitting on their hands because they wanted to take credit for this. That is what this is all about.

We are now faced with the prospect of an election, potentially in the next few months, so the Conservatives want to ensure they get this through so they can run around the country and say that this is what they have done to get tough on crime. It is a joke and it is highly hypocritical by any objective analysis.

I want to go to what this issue is about. From both the experiences I have had at justice and those my colleague from Vancouver has had on the public safety committee, the information that we need as to what changes should be made in this part of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will not be available in that 36 to 48 hour timeframe I have just given. It will not be available because this information is not on a computer any place. I want to know how many people were released last year or in the last three to five years under the one-sixth provision of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I actually have a rough estimate for that. We have asked this of both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice repeatedly and they do not know, or at least they are refusing to say. They always get up and talk about victims but they do not tell us what this will really do and who has used this up to this point. We have some rough figures. There may be as many as 1,500 individuals per year. This is almost speculation on how many actually get it. We know, in a rough way, that it is somewhere in the 800 individuals per year range. We do not know though by how much their sentences are reduced. If I take a rough estimate that each person is going to get out a year earlier, because these people generally will be in the minimum security sections of our prisons, the cost is about $85,000 to have them there. I am not really great at math but I am certainly better than the government is. If we do this calculation for 1,500 individuals, it is up to about $100 million. If it is only about 1,000 people we are going to keep in, that would be $85 million a year.

When we go out to the public and say that we are taking care of the victims, we need to consider the taxpayers. We also will be asking who has used this. Is it all white collar crime? Is it the Earl Jones and the Lacroix of the world? We do not know that. We have had speculation that it may be people who have been involved in the drug trade. We do not know that, and if there are those, we do not know how many.

When I say “we”, I and my colleague probably has more information than the government has. However, I can tell the House that by tomorrow evening, when the committee is working on this, those figures will be no clearer than what I have at this point. Those statistics are not computerized. We know from other experiences that Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board have to look at each individual file to tell us what an individual was convicted of, for how long and how much he or she will get off. However, we will not have that information so we will be flying blind by the time we actually have to vote on the bill when it gets back here on Wednesday.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying, first, I find it rather ironic to hear an NDP member stand in the House and accuse anyone of being hypocritical. However, I will say no more than that for fear of offending parliamentary rules.

I will also say that I am glad that the member has revealed that he has had this bill in his possession for the last five or six months. I will compliment him by saying that I am sure he has the legal savvy to have figured it out a long time ago.

I also want to thank him for confirming what the rest of us are already suspecting, that he and his caucus are bound and determined to bring us into an unnecessary election that no Canadian really wants.

Every Canadian I have talked to who has looked at this bill and seen fraudsters and others who commit non-violent crimes being released after serving only one-sixth of their sentences knows there is something wrong with that.

In his whole 10 minutes, the hon. member did not justify that proposition in any sense. Is the member that disconnected from Canadians that he does not agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain says that I am not; and I agree with her, I am not.

It is interesting that the member talks about white collar criminals, and then he says “and others”. He has no idea who those others are.

Let me give me one example that I heard of recently. A woman who was addicted, I am not sure if it was to gambling or drugs, embezzled a large amount of money from her employer. She had young children. She was sentenced to more than two years and is now in federal prison. It is her first offence. Those children are not being cared for by other family members. If she applies for parole, she is going to get it. Is the average Canadian going to say, no, she should not get it?

She can go home and put her life back together. She has cured her addiction, which would be part of the reason for her being able to get out. She will be back in society, hopefully, being productive and caring for her children. Would the average Canadian say no to that? I do not know. However, I think the average Canadian who I know and who cares would say, yes, it is time to let her out and let her get her life back together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the hon. member's fact-filled speech, in distinct contrast to the freedom from facts that members opposite in the government seem to fill their rhetoric with rather than facts.

Again, I have been asking this question, and I will continue to ask it for the balance of the debate. The hon. member started to circle in on the cost of this particular measure. It is clear that either the government members do not know or they will not say. I suspect it is the former, that they actually do not know.

The member started to talk about the cost of incarceration in the order of about $85,000 to $100,000 on a per-year basis, per inmate. I would be interested to know if the member had some thoughts as to what the actual cost of this measure would be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite serious. It is hard to be more specific than this because we do not know what the original sentence was. That, again, has to be gathered file by file.

However, as that is being done, we have to assume that it is going to be close to one year for the average person, because we rarely get people sentenced to federal prison for exactly two years. Most of the time it will be three, four, five or six years.

If we take one-sixth off that, we will be talking in a number of cases about a year of additional time in jail. Just do the math in rough figures. There are at least 1,000 people from what we have been able to determine who are eligible for this each year, of which 800-plus receive it, and we think that number may be as high as 1,500. All of those people stay in. Even if it were the 800 figure, it would not be $85 million, but about $70 million or $75 million. That is what we are talking about.

When the Conservatives run around the country and stir up the pot and do their fearmongering, they never put a dollar figure to it. In fact, they are hiding the figures. We have a motion before this House right now for them to deliver those figures for a whole bunch of other crime bills. We never see the figures. They never talk about what this is going to cost; they talk about prudent financial planning. However, they do not have the first idea about that when it comes to this issue.