Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the members of the House for agreeing to that.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, which deals with the faint-hope clause. The faint-hope clause is called that for a very good reason. When we read the process that an offender, someone who is incarcerated, must go through in order to apply for the faint-hope clause, it is a very tough process.
I have been looking up the information on the justice department website. Quoting from the website, this is the process that an offender has to go through:
Upon application, the offender must first convince a justice they would have a reasonable prospect of success with a jury that must unanimously decide to reduce the number of years of imprisonment the offender must serve without eligibility for parole. The offender must then convince the jury that they should have the right to make an early application for parole to the NPB. Finally, the offender must convince the NPB that they are unlikely to endanger public safety if released.
If parole is granted, the offender remains under supervision for their entire life unless parole is revoked, in which case the person would be returned to prison. Any breach of the offender’s parole conditions or a conviction for a new offence may also result in the return of that person to prison.
Just to the deal with the facts of what is before us, since 1997, and as of April 2009, there were 991 offenders who were deemed eligible to apply for such a judicial review that I just spoke about. Of those who were eligible, there were 174 court decisions in which 144 became eligible for earlier parole, and of these 144, 131 were granted parole. So I think we can see that the existing provision on the faint-hope clause is a very onerous one and rigorous in the tests that a person must establish in going through various judicial reviews and finally to the National Parole Board.
That is all for good reason, because we are talking about very serious crimes that have been committed. I would certainly echo the comments of my colleague from the Bloc who talked about our justice system overall. We do have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that our justice system is fair and balanced and that rehabilitation is certainly part of that.
I have to state that the NDP has very grave concerns about this bill as it seeks to eliminate the faint-hope clause, because we believe it will seriously undermine the fairness and the balance that we have in our judicial system. In fact, I find it quite ironic that just a few days ago in the press there were documents released from Library and Archives Canada dating back to 1976, secret cabinet documents that showed that the prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “objected strongly to the removal of this provision, [the faint-hope clause,] asserting that the proposed legislative package”—a product of various compromises to win public backing and to outflank the tough-on-crime Conservatives—“was already 'neanderthal' enough without adding to its repressive character”.
That is from a cabinet document in 1976. I guess not much has changed in that today here again we face a Conservative government that is all wrapped up in a very tough on crime agenda that is simply about catering to a very narrow base. Certainly within the NDP we take this very seriously. We have a responsibility to represent the whole system. We have a responsibility to speak out for that fairness and balance.
The faint hope clause might not be popular. There are obviously cases that one can draw on to show very grievous situations and very violent situations, but it is there as a faint hope on the basis that there are individuals who, because of time served and the fact that they have been rehabilitated, may be in a position where to release them early and to allow that gradual release back into society is actually something beneficial.
Here I would quote from the John Howard Society of Canada, from its “Presumptive Gradual Release” paper of 2007, which talks about this issue of the balance and what parole and early release is about. It says:
The research literature shows clearly, however, that those who are involved in good gradual release programs re-offend less frequently than those who are not involved in such programs. This is particularly true of higher-risk offenders.
In fact, it goes on to point out:
If well managed, programs of gradual release are the best method known to reduce recidivism. Failure to involve people in these programs places the community at greater risk and in so doing contravenes the purpose of the Act.
On the one hand, we are dealing here with the political optics that are put forward by the Conservative Party. It is just catering to this agenda of bringing in tougher and tougher laws and getting rid of the faint hope, without recognizing the damage that is being done to our judicial system.
We have to ensure that we have a judicial system that is fair and balanced, that also emphasizes rehabilitation. Otherwise, we are then sending people out onto the streets who will still be at great risk of reoffending. I think one thing we would agree on is that what we ultimately strive for is safety in our local communities. So what happens to these offenders is really important and cannot just be dismissed as a political campaign or a political talking point as we have seen over and over again with the bills that have been before us.
I know our caucus, the NDP caucus, has serious reservations about this bill. We believe the faint-hope clause is there for a purpose. It is something that is very hard to achieve but is there for those occasions where it is warranted and where a judicial review and a full process can show that in some circumstances there is good reason to allow limited early parole for a gradual reintegration into society, and that is something that serves the interests of society.
We are also very concerned about the rights of victims. Under the current process, there is a great deal of pressure put on families and victims in terms of the number of times they might have to appear if an application for a judicial review is applied for. So we will be bringing forward amendments to this bill, and our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, will be speaking later this day on some of the issues and concerns we have.
For the purposes of getting some of these amendments, we will allow this bill to go to committee. However, we have serious opposition to this bill in terms of what it stands for and what it would do to our justice system, and I think we should be able to speak honestly about this. Unfortunately, so much of this debate has now been dragged down to its lowest level of political messaging and a political ideological approach from the Conservative government. As New Democrats, we are not prepared to engage in that kind of politicization of our justice system. We are not prepared to undermine the balance that we strive for in our judicial system. So we find it very offensive that this kind of approach is being taken over and over again by the Conservative government.
In fact, it is kind of ironic that, on the one hand, we have a government that has brought in how many bills now? There are more than a dozen of these sort of boutique criminal justice amendment bills.
It is ironic that the Conservatives do that, on the one hand, and huff and puff, jump up and down, and make a big deal about it. Yet when they receive a court order to return someone like Mr. Abdelrazik, a specific court order ordering the government to abide by the law that has been laid down, they refuse to do so.
Even here today, the day before the decision comes to its full fruition, the government is still refusing that. Or we can look at things like the challenge on Insite in the downtown east side, where the government refuses to respect court decisions, or medical marijuana.
I find it incredibly ironic that, on the one hand, the Conservatives rush in with all these amendments, but on the other hand, they themselves think they are somehow above the law and can just ignore court decisions that are made.
In closing I would like to say that this bill, in its present form, is not acceptable to New Democrats. When it goes to committee, our justice critic will be seeking changes that we think will improve the situation for families and for victims. We know that discussion will take place at committee and we think we need to ensure that we maintain the fairness and balance we have in our justice system. We are not about to let the Conservative government begin to unravel that and create serious damage in our society.
