Justice Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[John Giokas]

There may also be three murders related to the same affair, as in the example you raised. In that case, the convictions are consecutive. That person may be given a 10-year ineligibility period for the first murder because it's second-degree murder and was committed in special circumstances. You understand the situation very well. However, if a judge decides—it is very important to emphasize that this is optional—to add consecutive ineligibility periods, each period will be 25 years. In the case you referred to, the same person could receive a 10-year ineligibility period for the first murder, 25 years for the second and 25 years for the third, if that's what the judge decided.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

That's the case if the same judge conducts the trial for the three murders.

[John Giokas]

Yes.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All right. In fact, that leads me to believe that the majority of multiple murders are committed in circumstances in which the person is desperate.

[John Giokas]

I agree.

In Canada, we have had very few examples of serial killers. The vast majority of serial murders are committed in a single context, particularly within a family or in a work context. These are people who have problems; that's for sure. That's the reason why the proposed measures are optional.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Woodworth for five minutes.

You're sharing your time with Mr. Dechert, is that correct?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes. Thank you very much, Chair.

I just have one or two questions to be absolutely clear.

First of all, regarding the issue of retroactivity, and apart from the specific wording that I see.... Let's just start with under the existing wording: if someone commits a murder, is sentenced, and then commits another murder, would this legislation permit a judge to impose a consecutive parole ineligibility with respect to the second murder?

[John Giokas]

Yes, if both murders occurred after the coming into force of the legislation.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

Let me repeat that, because that isn't actually what I was trying to ask. I was just a bit distracted.

What I mean to ask is that if a murder is committed before the section comes into force and results in a period of parole eligibility, and then the same individual commits a murder after the section comes into force, will a court be permitted to impose a consecutive parole ineligibility with respect to the second murder?

[John Giokas]

No. But there are already rules in the Criminal Code that deal with that situation. There is a combination of effect between the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, which would require that the second period of parole ineligibility be added to what is left of the first. In other words, the clock would start running again.

So if somebody commits one murder prior to this legislation coming into force—and I presume, from your example, that they've been captured, convicted, and are serving a prison sentence—and commit another one, if they've served 10 years of that first parole ineligibility period, say, the law automatically adds another 25. So they would serve 35 years. That happens automatically right now.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

But if it was not such a lengthy period...if it was one year, then it would be 26.

[John Giokas]

That's right.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Is that by virtue of the wording of this act or by virtue of some other wording in the Criminal Code or the corrections act?

[John Giokas]

The example you gave me was of a murder before the coming into force of the act and one afterwards. In that case, it's the interaction of section 120.2 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and section 745 of the Criminal Code.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Secondly, I just want to be very clear. If an individual at the present time commits one murder, a week later commits another murder, and a week after that commits a third murder, is there any discretion in the court to impose consecutive parole ineligibilities in such a case, under the present regime?

[John Giokas]

No, not under the law as it stands now.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

Thank you.

I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Dechert.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have one and a half minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here this afternoon.

I think it's interesting that we're discussing this bill today when, as you probably know, Clifford Olson applied earlier today yet again for parole. He's a person who committed 11 heinous murders--that we know about--and received one life sentence. It seems to me that we as a society need to light a candle for every life that's taken illegally and in these terrible circumstances, such as this case, and we need to respect each victim. This bill may be one way we can do that.

I'm happy to report, by the way, that Mr. Olson has been denied parole again, but I feel for the families of his victims, who had to appear again.

We've heard a lot from our friends on the other side of the room about how Canada has a longer than average incarceration period for murderers anyway, so why do we need to do things like this? I wonder if you could describe for us why you think this legislation is necessary, given that case.

[John Giokas]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Dechert.

The rationale for the bill was set out in the speech of the Honourable Daniel Petit in his remarks on November 15. They were very much to the effect of what you've just said. I don't believe I could add anything more meaningful to them.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you.

Why will--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert, you're out of time.