Megan Leslie

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

It was the member for Saint Boniface in answer to a question.

I believe that attitude is an affront to democracy but it is very much in keeping with what the minister's office is doing today, which is denying the committee access to information that is critical for committee members to make reasoned decisions, good decisions and decisions that are actually based on evidence and not just on scaremongering and fear tactics.

I will quote my colleague from Winnipeg Centre when he said that parliamentary committees were the backbone of our democracy. It is imperative that they be allowed to function with all the information they need to make good decisions.

I strongly support the motion by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to refer Bill C-36 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reviewing certain clauses but also possible other amendments that could be made in light of the fact that the office of the Minister of Public Safety has failed to provide the committee with information that it is entitled to receive.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for the opportunity to share this time during debate.

I wholeheartedly support the motion to send Bill C-36 back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I hope my colleagues will see fit to support the motion as well.

When the bill was before the justice and human rights committee, Mr. Head of Correctional Service Canada appeared before the committee. He was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, for statistics on who was subject to the faint hope clause on the 25 year eligibility but he was not able to provide that information but agreed to provide the information to the committee at a later date.

My colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh also asked for data on how many people were actually successful on their first application and data on how many people applied a second or third time or more. He also asked Mr. Head for information on victims presenting statements and their attendance at hearings.

Later, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the commissioner for information on recidivism rates and asked if he could get the information to the committee quickly, within a week. Mr. Head stated that it was possible and that he would undertake to do this. He did hold up his end of the bargain.

However, now we have Bill C-36 before the House at third reading and the committee still has not seen this information from Mr. Head.

We are expected, as elected members of the House of Commons who hold the trust and the faith of our electorate, of our constituents, to vote on Bill C-36 when we do not have this information before us, and when the minister has been withholding this information submitted by Mr. Head, and when the minister has withheld this information from the committee.

I am a new MP in the House and I am just learning the rules and the finer points of procedure of this noble House. However, despite my inexperience with the rules of committee procedure, I know that the fact the committee has been kept in the dark and that information the committee has requested is being withheld from them by the minister's office is just not on.

It is incredible to me that we even need to bring forward this motion. I think Canadians would actually be grateful to my colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh for catching it, for raising it here in the House of Commons and for bringing this motion forward.

It is incredible to hear that the minister received this report on November 16. It is also incredible that a standing committee of this Parliament is having its duty and obligation to carefully review legislation, to make amendments, to explore the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of legislation and to call in expert witnesses and witnesses from the community, interfered with by essentially the minister's office.

Despite my inexperience with parliamentary procedure, I certainly have experience with truth, fairness and justice. I would say that this attempt to keep information from a parliamentary committee is not about truth, justice or fairness. It is an affront to democracy. It is an affront to democracy whether there is a rule in the handbook or not. It is an affront to democracy that the government would meddle in the business of the committee.

Committee work is key to our parliamentary democracy because it is an opportunity for members to sit as a group, as a committee no less, and look at a piece of legislation with a critical eye and to hear from witnesses who have expertise and knowledge on the issue.

I have certainly had my mind changed on certain issues and have come to understand issues better with more nuance, thanks to the incredible testimony of witnesses who can bring a different eye to the legislation.

The committee is a chance for MPs to work together. Believe it or not, sometimes they do work together to better a piece of legislation, to make amendments or sometimes to chuck it right out the window. Sometimes all parties actually agree that a certain piece of legislation cannot go forward and that it needs to be tossed out. This all happens in committee.

When the Canadian Bar Association appeared before the committee, it stated that this bill should not be amended, that it could not be improved and that it should not pass because it was not a good bill, which, in my opinion, was a remarkable thing for the CBA to say.

In an attempt to thoroughly consider this bill, my colleagues from Windsor—Tecumseh and Abitibi—Témiscamingue tried to get the information they needed for this bill from the head of Correctional Service Canada and he complied. The minister, however, will not release the information to the committee, which is an affront to democracy. We really should expect such treatment of democracy by the government.

This summer I, along with the member for Papineau and the member for Saint Boniface, were interviewed by the media for a piece on decorum in the House during question period. We were asked as rookie MPs about our first impressions of Parliament in question period. Although the member for Papineau and I tried to offer constructive criticism, the member for Saint Boniface stated that question period should be cancelled altogether.

Question period is 45 minutes of pure accountability. It is the only time members have to ask the government questions and demand answers about what it is doing. This is what democracy is all about and yet a government member says that question period should be cancelled altogether.

I would note that later on in the article the same member stated that more committee work should happen behind closed doors and in the absence of media. Would that not be great? There would be no media, no record and no opportunity to ask questions.

[Petitions, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by petitioners in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The petitioners are calling for a national housing strategy that will ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians. In particular, they are looking for an increased federal role through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing that go beyond the one-time stimulus investment contained in Budget 2009.

They are asking for Parliament to ensure swift passage of private member's Bill C-304.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

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

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

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

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

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, serious time for the most serious crime act. This amends provisions with regard to the rights of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole.

This is done by the elimination of the so-called faint hope clause. It is a clause by which those who are given a life sentence for murder or high treason can apply for parole after having served 15 years of their sentences.

This section of the Criminal Code is known colloquially as the faint hope clause because it provides offenders with the possibility of obtaining parole after serving 15 years of a sentence for murder where the sentence was life without eligibility for parole after more than 15 years.

Offenders convicted of first degree murder serve life as a minimum sentence, with their first parole eligibility set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, but the judge can set the parole eligibility point anywhere between 10 and 25 years. Those who are serving a life sentence can be released from prison if parole is granted by the National Parole Board.

If inmates are granted parole, they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a Correctional Service Canada parole officer. Parole can be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time. This does not allow them to get out of jail free forever. They can be returned to prison at any time if they violate any of the conditions of parole or if they commit a new offence. Not all “lifers”, people who are in jail for life, will be granted parole. Some may actually never be released on parole because they continue to pose a risk of reoffending.

I rise today because I am against getting rid of the faint hope clause. I am against it because it really is faint hope. Not very many prisoners actually access this clause. Further, it is very much an incentive for inmates to behave, to ensure corrections workers are safe and to promote good behaviour in the prison system because there is the faint hope of release.

The Association Québecoise des Avocats et Avocates de la Défense appeared in committee and put forward an excellent submission about the actual impacts and implications of abolishing the faint hope clause. It asked a great question in committee. Why get rid of a measure that is likely to encourage individuals who have committed a serious crime to be rehabilitated? Why would we get rid of something that would encourage them to be rehabilitated and become active members of society?

Further, with respect to the average time spent in custody by an offender given a life sentence for first degree murder, the average time served in Canada is greater than in all the other countries that the association surveyed, including the United States. The average time spent in custody is 12 years in Sweden and 14.4 years in England. Guess what it is in Canada? It is 28.4 years in Canada. Canada's offenders are serving sentences beyond the 25 year mark.

In 1976 a bill was introduced to allow for a review of the period of ineligibility after 15 years. This was in the submission of this group, which quoted Jim Fleming, who was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of communications at the time. He was quoted as saying the provision was “a very important glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals”. It still resonates today.

In 1998 there was the Ontario Supreme Court decision in Vaillancourt in which Associate Chief Justice Callaghan held that the review process needed to strike a balance between considerations of leniency for the well behaved convict in service of his sentence and it may serve to assist in his rehabilitation and the community interest in repudiation and deterrence of the conduct that led to his incarceration.

The numbers of people who are accessing the faint hope clause are not what the government would have us believe. We do not have murderers lining up at the door and suddenly accessing this provision and getting out of jail without serving time. It is just not the case, although the government would have us believe it is the case. What it is trying to do is scare us into passing these crime and punishment laws that actually do not impact and affect very many people, numbers wise, but they can have a tremendous impact on those people.

In the first faint hope group of hearings in 1987 to 2000, only 21% of eligible offenders even applied for a hearing. Over those 13 years, 84 cases were successful in having some reduction in parole ineligibility, an average of 6 a year. Therefore we are looking at very small numbers.

In the same 13 year period, the parole of only 4 offenders was revoked for an alleged new offence. They were armed robbery, drug offences and two less serious drug offences, but parole can be revoked for any reoffence.

The four amendments in 1997 significantly curtailed the availability of section 745.6. The Canadian Bar Association noted how few people this impacted and said that of the 63 completed applications prior to 1995, 13 were rejected, 19 were allowed to go to apply, 27 were allowed to go to the board only after 16 to 20 years in prison and only 3 could go on to the board after 21 to 23 years were served. Six prisoners whose applications to the jury were successful were ultimately denied release by the Parole Board.

Therefore, it is important to remember that we have people who are not even self-selecting, not even saying they will make that application. Even those who are allowed to make the application and those who then go on and are granted early release, and the numbers are getting smaller and smaller, are subject to a lifetime of supervision and may be re-institutionalized for any transgression. It is also notable that of those who have been allowed early release to date, only one has reoffended by committing an armed robbery.

The numbers are so low, but the results are staggering because this means the possibility of rehabilitation. I would note that this has possible implications for taxpayers. After serving over 15 years in prison, it has the possibility to save taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year if the board is satisfied that this person is rehabilitated.

I noted earlier that the Canadian Bar Association appeared before committee. That association is a national association and it represents over 37,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and students across Canada. Its primary objectives include improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It takes prosecutors, defence lawyers and legal academics from every province and territory. It is seeking to improve the law and improve the administration of justice.

The association has come out quite unequivocally against getting rid of the faint hope clause. I will read from the submission of the CBA. It was talking about what the government was doing. It is saying that the government communication on Bill C-36 suggests an increase in the number of offenders who are being released under this clause. The CBA says that this is far from the reality and it has the numbers to back it up.

It says that the government seems to imply that even one person having access to the National Parole Board before serving his or her full 25 years is too many. The CBA clearly states that it disagrees with that statement, and I disagree with it as well.

If we are going to consider any review or amendment of the Criminal Code, we must recognize that all reform needs to be fact based. It needs to include an appraisal of the present situation and a careful assessment of whether reforms will actually enhance the objectives of sentencing in the criminal justice system, not just what the polling numbers say.

Important questions need to be answered, such as what are we trying to accomplish. Are these reforms actually going to make our communities safer, and do we need this legislative change?

Let us consider some of these things.

I go back to the point of the faint hope clause. It operates fairly, effectively and efficiently. It really needs to be retained and should not be amended. It gives hope to people who are serving lengthy terms of imprisonment, which encourages rehabilitation. This results in safer conditions within prisons, and in the outside world as well, once a person has been rehabilitated.

Each time the National Parole Board decides that a prisoner can be safely and gradually released, again under supervision, after serving 15 years in prison, it saves taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. This also provides a unique opportunity for community input into an integral and essential part of the sentencing process.

I mentioned doing things based on polling numbers. A lot of people do believe that the faint hope clause simply allows convicted murderers to be released after serving only 15 years of their sentences, but that is not the case, and it is time for us to set the record straight on that.

The Canadian Bar Association quoted Professor Allan Manson, who has noted that:

[those who] claim that parole eligibility review does not have public support seem to ignore the fact that a prisoner's application is determined by a jury who are usually members of the community where the offence was committed. Accordingly, the prisoner obtains relief only if the jury decides in his or her favour.

It is actually the community that is making the decisions about whether or not somebody is released. I cannot think of more broad-based public support than having a jury made up of one's peers in the community actually making these decisions.

The jury's verdict absolutely must be seen as a measure of public support for this process, particularly because the jury actually has to have a unanimous decision. It is not just a matter of a couple of folks saying, “Let us give this guy a break”, but the unanimous decision of a jury.

My colleagues from Mississauga South and St. John's East had an earlier conversation in the House about people who have been convicted of murders and who actually know their victims. That is very much the case. I do not have the statistic in front of me, but the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers know their victims. So when there is an opportunity for victims to give input to the jury, there are people there who know each other. Families are involved.

We have to think about what kind of input they would be giving to a jury and that sometimes there may be opportunities for a family or community to say, “We want you back. It is time for you. You have served and been rehabilitated, and we have an interest in your coming back to the community. We have a stake in your coming back to the community”. That is a very powerful consideration.

To recap, the faint hope clause serves a very important purpose in that it does provide faint hope. If someone who is convicted of murder or high treason works very hard at rehabilitation and is truly remorseful, he or she might be released on parole after serving 15 years, but before the full 25 years of incarceration are up.

It is a faint hope, because they actually need to satisfy their case management team, their psychologists, their psychiatrists, a judge, and a jury, that the application is even worth being considered by the National Parole Board.

Look at all of those steps. Ultimately, it is the National Parole Board that remains responsible for determining if the offender is worthy of early parole, but look at all of those people who need to be convinced first. It is an onerous process, as it should be, and it is not something to be taken lightly.

The faint hope clause does provide an incentive. We can say this over and over again, because it is incredibly important that there be an incentive for those serving a life sentence to behave well while in custody and to seek out rehabilitative programming.

I ask members, what would they do in that position? If they were in prison and knew there was absolutely no chance of being released, would they engage in rehabilitative programming? I do not know if I would.

This is a reason for them to work on their behaviour. This is a reason to get engaged with rehabilitative programming.

Moreover, let us not forget our brothers and sisters working in these prisons. The faint hope clause contributes to safer working conditions for prison guards and employees of the Correctional Service of Canada. Anything that we can do to make a safer environment for them, I think is something we should all get behind.

A purely punitive model is inconsistent with years of research and statistics that have founded our sentencing philosophy in Canada. We have not just come up with this and made it up; this is based on years of research to show what actually works when we are looking at sentencing philosophy and principles. We need sentencing principles that show that a safer society is achieved by emphasizing rehabilitative initiatives and adherence to human rights principles within penal institutions.

The Canadian Bar Association section recommends that Bill C-36 not be enacted. I actually will read directly from the bar's submission because the last paragraph of its submission completely sums up what we should all know about this clause. The association writes:

The “faint hope” clause does not jeopardize public safety, as shown by experience to date. The current limits on the availability of “faint hope” hearings provide ample impediments to undeserved or frivolous applications. There are few “faint hope” hearings. The number of murderers who offend at all, let alone violently, while on parole is extremely low. On the other hand, the “faint hope” clause serves important functions, in terms of fairness and rehabilitation for deserving offenders who have made significant changes over 15 or more years of incarceration.

I think the bar association's conclusion sums it up perfectly. We need to offer faint hope for all the reasons listed above. For safety in prisons, for behaviour, and if we want to throw in the taxpayer money angle of it, we need to support the faint hope clause and stand in opposition to this bill.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today the government may have woken up to the issues facing urban aboriginal youth, but what about the friendship centres that house these programs? Friendship centres deliver programs that are community based, accessible and culturally relevant, and they improve the lives of the people who use them.

However, the government has not renewed the funding they need to operate, and once again they are left waiting. Will the minister announce renewed funding and enhancements for friendship centres across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her counsel and mentoring on environment issues. She is doing an excellent job of representing environmental issues in the House.

I agree with her wholeheartedly. I would come back to the fact that the environmental regulations are a side agreement. They are not included in the main body of the text to show they are important to the government. There also are no enforcement mechanisms, which means it is completely meaningless. We cannot do x and, if we do x, nothing will happen. It makes no sense. We need something that is enforceable and we need it to be in the main body of the agreement.

As for her question about whether the environment should be considered when it comes to fair trade, I say, wholeheartedly, yes. We will see that. I used Just Us! Coffee Roasters as an example. Not only is it about fair trade but it is looking at shade-grown beans, which are more ecologically sustainable, and it is looking at the impacts on the environment in all of the countries where it works.