Evidence of meeting #39 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was murder.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Giokas  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Bruce MacGregor  Director of Law, Military Justice Policy and Research, Department of National Defence
Myles Kirvan  Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I call the meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Tuesday, November 30, and this is meeting number 39. Just for the record, this meeting is televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're dealing with two items. First of all, we're beginning a review of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act. Secondly, we'll move to a review and consideration of the supplementary estimates (B). The minister will join us for the second hour of our meeting.

Back to Bill C-48, to assist us with our review, we have with us two witnesses. First of all, we have an official from the Department of Justice, John Giokas, counsel, from the criminal law policy branch.

Welcome back.

3:45 p.m.

John Giokas Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

We also have with us Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce MacGregor. He's director of law, military justice policy and research for the Department of National Defence.

Welcome to our committee.

3:45 p.m.

Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce MacGregor Director of Law, Military Justice Policy and Research, Department of National Defence

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I understand, Mr. Giokas, that you have some introductory comments. Once you're done, we'll open the floor to questions.

3:45 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Giokas

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm here today because I understand that the committee has requested that officials provide an overview of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

As the chair has indicated, I'm here with Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce MacGregor from the Office of the Judge Advocate General. After my presentation I will respond to any questions you may have with regard to the Criminal Code amendments set out in this bill, and Lieutenant-Colonel MacGregor will respond to any questions you may have with regard to the consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

That being said, as a preliminary matter let me begin by saying--and as I'm sure you're aware--that the punishment for first- and second-degree murder in the Criminal Code is life imprisonment, with the possibility of applying for parole after a period of parole ineligibility determined under section 745 of the code. That period is 25 years from the time an offender is brought into custody for first-degree murder.

It's also 25 years for any second-degree murder where the murderer has previously been convicted either of another domestic murder or of an intentional killing under sections 4 and 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The parole ineligibility period for all other second-degree murderers is a minimum of 10 years.

That being said, sentencing judges are already authorized under the Criminal Code, under section 745.4, to set a parole ineligibility period for second-degree murderers that may range anywhere from 11 to 25 years. In making this decision, judges must have regard—and I'm quoting here from section 745.4—“...to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made...” by a jury.

In essence, the bill before you today proposes to amend the Criminal Code to authorize a judge to impose multiple periods of parole ineligibility on convicted multiple murderers, to account for each murder victim, and to use exactly the same criteria in making his or her decision in this regard.

Let me be more specific. Bill C-48 would amend section 745.5 and related provisions of the Criminal Code to authorize a sentencing judge to impose on an offender sentenced for more than one first- or second-degree murder, or any combination of first- and second-degree murders, a separate 25-year period of parole ineligibility for the second and for each subsequent murder.

As mentioned, in exercising this authority, the judge would be required to have regard to the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the murders, and any jury recommendation. In essence, we are proposing exactly the same criteria as appear in section 745.4 to ground this new authority; however, the sentencing judge would also be required to state orally and in writing the basis of any decision not to exercise the authority being proposed in Bill C-48.

However, the key point is that these additional 25-year periods of parole ineligibility would run consecutively to the period of parole ineligibility imposed for the first murder. As I mentioned, that period will depend on whether it is a first- or second-degree murder and whether the judge has used the authority in section 745.4 to set the parole ineligibility period for the first murder at anywhere between 11 and 25 years.

The coming into force of Bill C-48 will occur on a date to be fixed by order in council. To ensure that jurisdictions are aware of the nature of this proposal, the Department of Justice will begin consultations with them as soon as this bill is passed into law.

That being said, we are now open to any questions that you may have on Bill C-48.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you very much.

Given that our time is limited owing to the fire alarm during question period, I am suggesting that we go with five-minute rounds. Is that acceptable?

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

All right. We'll start. Who is going for the Liberals?

You have five minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

I have two questions. First, since the death penalty was abolished in 1976, how many offenders sentenced to concurrent life sentences for multiple murders have received parole?

Second, since 1976, what, if any, is the average sentence served by convicted multiple murderers prior to being granted parole, if indeed any such offenders have been granted parole?

3:45 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Giokas

Unfortunately, I don't have the statistics since 1976. I can give you some numbers, if you'll just give me a moment.

As of August 2009, there were 4,311 federal offenders who had committed first- or second-degree murder. Of these, 457 have more than one murder conviction. While I can't answer your question about the length of time they spend in custody, I can tell you that as of August 2009 only 26% of multiple murderers had been paroled, compared with over 40% of single murderers.

Concerning the precise questions you've asked, I will undertake to get that information for you and bring it back to the committee.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Could you also undertake to report, if you have the data, how many of the 26% who had been paroled as of August 2009 have had their parole revoked? If possible, I would also like to know the reasons for revoking parole.

If there is any time left, I will turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Lee.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

I have two questions.

First, this bill and the penalty arrangements under it don't connect in any way, I take it, to the penalty for high treason.

3:50 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Okay.

Second, in your remarks, you said the second period of consecutive ineligibility was 15 years. Could a second period of parole ineligibility be less than 25 years but greater than 10 years? In other words, the first given parole ineligibility period was, let's say, 20 years on a second-degree murder—

3:50 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Giokas

No. The proposal as set out requires a mandatory 25 years for the second and any subsequent murder.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

That answers my question. There is no flexibility, no matter what the first period of parole ineligibility was. A second one, under this legislation, must be a 25-year ineligibility period.

3:50 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Giokas

Yes, that's right. It's based on the existing provisions of the Criminal Code in section 745.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move to Monsieur Ménard.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Here's what we're talking about: is this a person who has previously been convicted of murder who is being tried for another murder that he has committed, or a person who has committed a double murder during the same incident? For example, this year in Quebec, a doctor killed his two children.

3:50 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Giokas

Under the bill, all murders must have been committed after the bill comes into force, but the murders must not have been committed in the context of the same affair. There may be a first murder, and another may subsequently be committed in a different context. Regardless of whether there is one trial or two, what counts is that all the murders are committed after Bill C-48 comes into effect.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I understand that very well.

In Quebec, there were two tragedies in the same year. In both cases, they were family tragedies. In the first case, in an incomprehensible moment of despair, a surgeon killed his two children because his wife had left him. The second case is that of a family that was living in poverty and that had tried everything to get out of it. Ultimately, the parents decided that the entire family was going to die. So they prepared a cocktail of drugs that all family members took. The father and the two children died, but the woman survived and was thus charged with the three murders.

In the circumstances of multiple murders, are parole eligibility periods consecutive? When I read the wording, I still get the impression it concerns the trial of someone who has previously been convicted of murder and who is then convicted after another trial for another murder.

3:55 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

John Giokas

No. As I said, it may happen that someone commits a murder in the context of a certain affair and then commits another murder in another context.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Yes. I have no trouble understanding that. That's another case.