Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I have followed this issue closely since being elected three and a half years ago. I have read the legislation. Most important, I have read the report of the standing committee which led to the legislation. I agree with the principles set out in the legislation. I hope that everyone in the House will support the bill.
Going back in the history of this corrections legislation and policy and programs administered by Corrections Canada, it is important to bear in mind that our system has been fundamentally sound. It has been found to be sound by most people who work in the system in Canada, but more important, by people who have studied it from abroad. We do have what I consider to be a sound corrections system. However for some years now people having been crying for improvements to the system.
The committee released its report several years ago. It did an exhaustive study on the whole system. It heard from a lot of witnesses who were involved in the system, including offenders and victims. The committee tabled a very well written report in the House which contained 53 recommendations. Bill C-19 adopts 46 of those recommendations. This piece of legislation started with the people who appeared before committee. The committee made its report and now the bill is before the House. I agree wholeheartedly with the bill and the new approaches that are set out in this legislation.
We have to bear in mind when we talk about temporary release, parole and home arrest, that the paramount concern in the legislation has to be the protection of the public. People in the parole service and people in corrections offices throughout Canada have to be given the tools to keep that concern paramount.
I agree with a number of amendments that have been made to the whole procedure.
I practised law for 25 years in Canada. During my early years I did some criminal law but not a lot. A number of my partners practised a lot of criminal law.
One thing has disturbed me for a long time. Somebody would be convicted of a very serious offence, an offence that was repulsive to everyone in Canada. After the trial or after a plea of guilty, and after the summation and sentence, the offender would receive a penalty imposed by the court. The judge heard the evidence, read the reports, heard from the victim--and hearing from the victim has just happened over the last six or seven years--and heard from the offender's lawyer and the prosecutor. The judge, after all that time, effort and energy had been put into this whole exercise, would give a sentence of 15 years. Then on the steps of the courthouse people would hear the statement that the offender would be out in five years.
That offended people. That was the statutory release provision. I know it was not as simple as that and the offender would have to go on parole, but that was repulsive to everyone in Canada.
The judge would spend anywhere from a week to over three months on the case, whatever it took, and would sentence the offender to 15 years. Then the public would hear in the media the statement that the offender would be out in five years. It was wrong that the statutory provision was there. I am pleased that is being dealt with. I am pleased also that certain offences which the Canadian public finds offensive, such as child pornography, high treason, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, causing bodily harm, torture, those offences would be excluded from that whole provision.
I am also pleased that the parole service will be given more tools to determine whether or not there is a likelihood of a particular offender reoffending. We know some people will reoffend but some will not. A lot of times people go to jail, and unfortunately we see it in some instances involving gambling which sometimes leads to crime, to theft from companies and individuals. There are situations where there is a high probability that the offender will not reoffend. The parole service has to be given the tools to make that determination.
The bill increases the ineligibility period for day parole for offenders serving more than six years. This addresses another issue that did offend the Canadian public, the people I talked to. I go back to my previous example where a person would be sentenced to 15 years and then it would be talked about on the street that after a short period of time, perhaps too short in a lot of instances, the offender would be out on day parole working at a job or visiting his family. These situations do not bring the corrections system into disrepute, but there certainly are reservations. I am glad the bill followed the standing committee's recommendations to deal with this.
The whole area of temporary absence has to be dealt with. The parole service and corrections service have to be given more discretion in dealing with this whole area. The provision relating to work release has been repealed. That is a very good development. For the purposes of both types of temporary absences, a structured program for work has been added, so there are continuing efforts to develop life skills and work programs in that area.
Another area I would like to speak to is victims' rights. Canadian legislation and the programs the courts have used have come a long way in the last 10 or 15 years. Fifteen years ago it would have been unheard of in the Canadian judicial system for a victim to be given any rights in court. We have come a long way in the sentencing process, but this is lacking in the parole process and the bill deals with this.
The legislation also deals with clarifying the definition of a victim. In this legislation the victim is given a lot more rights to appear before the parole board when an offender is up for parole and the hearing is held. It is offensive for a victim, especially if it was a rape or an assault, to find out on the street, and these things are usually heard on the street, that a parole hearing had been held. The offender had been sentenced to 15 years, but after a five year period had been given parole and the victim had absolutely no knowledge that the parole hearing had been held. I think the legislation is a very positive development.
There is more work for the National Parole Board. I am pleased to see the increase in the maximum number of full time parole board members from 45 to 60. Many times when the government enacts legislation and programs it does not increase the needed resources. That is dealt with in the bill. The number of parole board members is increased from 45 to 60.
Finally, I wish to speak about terminally ill offenders who are in Canadian prisons. There is a special provision in the bill that if the circumstances are correct and the offender meets the criteria they are allowed to be released under certain circumstances.
