Paul Szabo

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

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

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

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

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, this subject is one that seems to come up in every Parliament. The numbers do not much change because it is very rare that anyone gets out under the faint hope clause. However, there are certainly circumstances. I know from the work I have done on fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol-related birth defects, many people in the jails of Canada have committed very serious crimes and families of victims are very distraught and will never be the same again.

However, in our system, people who have mental incapacities have been put in jail. Being in jail will not help them. There is no rehabilitation for mental illness. There is no money to do it. In some cases such as fetal alcohol syndrome, it is not even a situation that can be rehabilitated.

Could the member comment on this? I believe Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan did a survey of their own of the provincial institutions and found that about 40% of the inmates in those prisons suffered from some mental illness. The minister of justice of the day, Anne McLellan, said that it was similar in federal institutions.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member has to do with information that would come out in discussions we have had on the bill, the faint hope clause, for some time. It has to do with the statistical occurrence of these serious crimes by family members against family members and friends against friends. Most Canadians would agree these would not be characterized as severe criminals, but rather some other characterization where they would not be a dangerous offender, for instance.

Does the member have any information on the latest statistics with regard to the incidence of crimes of people who know each other very well.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(1) and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present this petition with regard to the Nortel retirees and former employees protection committee.

This particular petition responds to a response from the Prime Minister's Office of October 28, in which his correspondence secretary said, “Be assured your comments have been carefully considered”, and that was it.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Company Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of all Canadian employees and to ensure that employees who are receiving a pension or long-term disability benefits and are laid off by a company during bankruptcy proceedings obtain preferred creditor status over other secured creditors.

They are also asking that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to ensure that employee-related claims are paid from the proceeds of Canada asset sales before the funds are permitted to leave the country.

This is an important petition and I hope the Prime Minister will heed the words of the Nortel retirees.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need some assurances about our approach to criminal justice issues, the role of incarceration, the role of rehabilitation and the role of prevention.

At the end of her speech, the member mentioned the need for a better balance in terms of crime prevention. I do not know what the latest statistics are but maybe she could provide some with regard to the effectiveness and cost efficiency of prevention rather than remediation after we have the problem.

[Committees of the House, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the issue of immigration consultants was something that came up very early in my career over these last 16 years. The problem at the time was that there were such unscrupulous people involved that we needed to have a system of regulation of so-called immigration consultants. It was essential. Without registration and without proper knowledge and training, it is asking for difficulties.

In the absence of sound argument about why we should allow people who are not properly registered and trained and who could in fact disrupt or destroy a person's opportunity to come to this country, I would certainly support the continued requirement to have registered consultants.

[Committees of the House, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member raises an interesting point and this is where due care and diligence needs to be taken.

There are requirements for payroll deductions and the set up of bank accounts to ensure the integrity of the system. I understand that in our banking system, identification, residential addresses, social insurance numbers and all kinds of things are required, but these are absolutely vital to have in place to protect the integrity of the system because abuse is possible.

With regard to payroll deductions, more often than not the rates of withholding, whether it be for EI, CPP or income tax, do not change frequently during the year. In fact, usually they are scheduled to change at the end of either a calendar year or possibly March 31. That means that all one needs to do is know what the deductions are once and they are repeated pay period after pay period.

It is a small inconvenience to have that done in the first instance but those who are in the accounting profession would be most happy to do it. It takes about 10 minutes to work it out for a specific case. I do not believe the safeguards should be tampered with simply for administrative convenience, which is a modest inconvenience in the first instance.

[Committees of the House, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Today a motion was moved to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled, “Migrant Workers and Ghost Consultants”. I wanted to take the opportunity to at least briefly participate in this debate from the standpoint that, having read the report and considering the seventh report, as well as the recommendations in this report, there are some very substantive issues that have been raised by a standing committee of this place whose mandate is laid out in the Standing Orders quite precisely.

Our experience with regard to committee work has been that it often falls on deaf ears.

The members of the committee work very hard. We rely upon expert witnesses. We rely upon the experience and expertise of all hon. members from all parties. We try to understand what the issues are, what the problems are, what the opportunities are and what the threats are.

When we do that work at committee, we come to a certain consensus on key issues that we believe would make eminent sense in terms of regulatory reform or legislative reform. These are reported in the report. This is an excellent report. It is very reflective of the quality of work that committees can do. It does not always represent a unanimity, but it represents a reference document with recommendations and reasons therefore, and, in some cases, sometimes often, even minority reports from one or more parties who feel that there are certain aspects of the report with which they have a divergent view.

Those reports come to this place, are tabled in the House by the chair of the committee and hon. members have an opportunity, should they wish, to move what is called a concurrence motion on a particular report so we can have a debate in the House, broaden that input and that reflection on the work that has been done, and maybe to actually enhance the debate based on the reaction of stakeholders, whether they be parliamentarians or, even beyond this place, in the public at large. This report is one that has received a lot of public attention.

With that input, it calls for and almost demands that there be a comprehensive departmental response, not only to Parliament but to the committee with regard to the work and the recommendations that it made. When committees have reports produced and tabled in the House, we can specifically ask for a formal response from the government within 120 days.

In the committee, which I chair, which is the Standing Committee for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we recently did a report on what we believed would be commentary on 12 particular recommendations, 5 or 6 of which the committee was very supportive and which recommended amendments to the Access to Information Act. The other recommendations we felt would require further consideration but were worthy of being brought to the attention of the minister. We heard a great number of witnesses. We also had a comprehensive consideration of the recommendations and there was a unanimous report on behalf of all parties.

After producing this report, very similar in size and certainly with substantive recommendations, the response from the government at the end of 120 days, after we eliminate the non-specific commentary in it, represented some 300 words, according to the information commissioner of the day, Robert Marleau, who came before us and expressed his concern and his regret.

The committee passed a motion that was presented to us by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. The motion, which was reported to this place, was first, to express the sincere and profound disappointment of the committee in the dismissive response of the minister; second, to report that the committee recommends strongly that a completely new access to information act be presented to Parliament by March 31, 2010; and finally, that the minister responsible, who had only appeared before us for one hour throughout this entire process, be required to again appear before committee by November 30, 2009. We are waiting for that response.

I raise that because my fear is that we are facing the same kind of a dismissive attitude by the government to many committee reports to Parliament. I think that represents another reflection of the dysfunction in the operations of Parliament. Parliament must be responsive to the work of parliamentarians. The government must be respectful of the work done by committees. It must be seriously considered and, when it disagrees, it must give informative, constructive responses to the recommendations and the work that has been done by the committee members based on expert testimony and consultations, as broadly as is necessary. Those are the kinds of things that matter.

There is a minority report in this and it comes from the Liberal Party. That minority report was spawned by the view that the government of the day does not have immigration priorities that reflect the priorities and the needs of Canadians. We believe the government has not only embraced and enhanced its attitude and its legislation on immigration, but it has contracted its view toward immigration to Canada.

I recall that the phrase most often heard from the government back at the beginning of my tenure was, “Why are you letting all those criminals in?” The starting point of its attitude toward immigration was that people who were coming here were substantively criminals. The Conservatives had to justify themselves for coming into this place rather than to understand that with a declining birthrate and with the demand for skilled labour and for the compassion of family reunification, a vibrant immigration policy was vital to Canada in terms of the health and well-being of its people.

The minority report expresses that the government does not share those values. If it does not share those values, then it certainly does not share the enthusiasm of the committee with regard to these important recommendations that have been made in this report.

I am sure all hon. members know that some of the most difficult, challenging and demanding but rewarding work that we do as parliamentarians in our constituency offices is to deal with immigration and citizenship matters, whether it be visas and the like, or family reunification and sponsorship.

Canadians are very reliant on members of Parliament but too often it is the case that we have people coming to us who have a problem with officials at Citizenship and Immigration. The reason they have the problem is because somebody told them that there was a consultant they could talk to who would give them all the nice ways to fast-track their situation. Every member in this chamber has had the experience of where someone has run afoul of the officials at Citizenship and Immigration because they followed the advice of so-called immigration consultants who told them not to bother giving that information.

My contribution is simply to ask all hon. members to look very carefully at getting a response from the government.