Jack Harris

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the history of NAFO activity, I will use the example of turbot. In 2003 there was a multi-year rebuilding plan set out by NAFO. The stock in 2005 was at the lowest level since 1975. Yet during the period 2004 to 2008 the total allowable catch set by NAFO was exceeded by an average of 30%.

Given the circumstances with NAFO and the new amendments, I wonder if the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte could tell us whether the new regime under NAFO that he is proposing should be rejected with which I agree, does that provide for any greater enforcement by Canada? Could we bring those ships into our ports if they violate the rules?

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Afghanistan, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that Canadian officials have made 182 visits to Afghan prisons to assess and monitor conditions in them. Yet the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the United States State Department say that torture still remains commonplace in these prisons.

Canadians need to have confidence that we are not violating international law in this matter.

Will the government make public the reports by Canadian officials who have visited Afghan prisons, or will it continue to claim that everything is all right without revealing the facts?

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we round up more than 20 times the number of prisoners the Dutch do. Yet while they track their detainees and report all actions to their Parliament, our government continues to keep this Parliament in the dark.

Worse, we now hear that most of the prisoners we handed over are not high-level targets like the Taliban, and many are innocent farmers who could end up being tortured.

A public inquiry would give an objective evaluation of the facts, the evidence and the systems now in place, not a charade, like yesterday's shameless attack by Conservative MPs and now the minister. Why not hold a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, how convenient is it for the most powerful agency in the government to order that no records be kept? This appears to be part of a broader strategy by the government to hold back details of torture and abuse in Afghan prisons.

In 2007 the Department of National Defence even set up a group called the Tiger Team to vet access to information requests concerning detainees. The process continues with government efforts to hinder the work of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

When will the government remove this cone of silence and let Canadians learn the truth?

[Afghanistan, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Privy Council Office sent a directive to Afghanistan that information on the handling of Afghan prisoners should be withheld from reports by diplomats in the military. This not only undermines accountability and transparency, hiding the truth from Canadians, but it allows ministers to have what is known as plausible deniability.

Why did the Conservative government send this directive and why did it think that information on torture and abuse had to be covered up?

[Afghanistan, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Brown has said that the U.K. will begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2010. For his part, President Obama has sent his advisers back to the drawing board and has asked the U.S. military to come up with a plan that includes an exit strategy. Here, our own top military commander, General Natynczyk, has begun organizing our scheduled pullout.

Why then is our defence minister publicly musing about continuing Canada's military mission? Is the minister at odds with the military leadership, or will he once and for all confirm that Canada will withdraw all its troops in 2011?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the question does not have an answer from me. Why, indeed, would the Conservative government of a proud democracy and whose history is foremost in support of human rights, both nationally and internationally, give encouragement to the Colombian government that has an appalling record of human rights and whose own people and representatives in the trade union movement, people working for human rights, are saying that this agreement is a bad thing and that it is rewarding the government for its atrocious record.

Why, indeed? I do not have an answer to that question and the answers that we are hearing from hon. members opposite do not hold water.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are clearly not talking about ancient history. We are talking about what has happened today, yesterday, the day before and last week.

Members of the Colombian labour movement are imploring Canadian parliamentarians to reject the agreement. They are the ones who know what is going on in their country. They are the ones who are telling us to not give succour to their government. They are telling us not to help it and legitimize its activity by supporting this agreement.

One would think, if this were good for the agricultural workers, industrial workers and the people of Colombia, members of the trade union of that country would be asking us to open it up. They would be asking us for more trade so they could get more jobs and improve their lot in life. However, that is not what they are saying. If they were, we would obviously be taking a very different approach.