Bill C-48 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with respect to the parole inadmissibility period for offenders convicted of multiple murders. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I think I do. As you're well aware, I'm here to be the voice for victims, and I can tell you unequivocally that victims do not want to see what happened to them happen to other people.

I think Bill C-48 addresses the concerns from both viewpoints and allows that discretion if there are reasons for the judge not to impose...the bill allows for that. The victims want us to keep in mind...we are talking about, if I may quote Priscilla de Villiers, “the worst of the worst”. These are people who have committed multiple murders. When I talk about accountability and compassion, it's about people, a very small percentage of people, who have committed those multiple murders, and not having to put families through repeat parole hearings like what we saw on Monday, for example. Keep in mind, from the victims' perspective, that when it comes to this legislation, that discretion is addressed by the judges, and keep in mind that these are people who have committed multiple murders, and that accountability, that life means life.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to come before you again today to discuss Bill C-48, which will provide judges the discretion to order consecutive rather than concurrent parole ineligibility.

I would like to start this afternoon by providing you with a very brief description of the work our office does. I would then like to provide members with my views and recommendations on this bill and how it impacts victims of crime in Canada.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate, which includes receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policymakers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively affect victims of crime.

In respect of Bill C-48, let me begin by stating our support for this bill and its intentions to provide the option, where appropriate, for judges to specify consecutive rather than concurrent parole ineligibility periods.

Bill C-48 addresses two specific concerns that victims have raised again and again: the need for accountability for each life taken, and the anxiety and emotional toll victims face when an offender is granted a parole hearing.

As to accountability, the desire to see justice served for the loss of a loved one is common among victims, and I would argue understandable. In the case of a serial murderer, families of victims want to see that the loss of their loved one's life is considered and valued and that the offender is held responsible for each life he has taken.

When offenders are sentenced to life in our current system, they are not entitled to statutory release. If they are granted parole, they remain for the rest of their lives under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada. An offender's parole ineligibility is not automatically extended based on the number of victims he has killed. As a result, there is no clear deterrent or obvious punishment for taking six lives instead of one. This is clearly a source of frustration for some victims.

Not all victims agree that the longer incarceration is the best solution. But each victim I have spoken to agrees on one thing: they never want what happened to them to happen to anyone else. Bill C-48 provides the option at the judge's discretion to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods and to ensure that the victims and the public in general are protected. This discretion is an essential element of the bill. It provides the judge with the ability to make a decision based on individual circumstances and the best interests of all Canadians.

The second concern Bill C-48 addresses is the anxiety and difficulty victims can face in preparing for and attending a parole hearing. My appearance here today is timely. Just two days ago I attended, as an observer, the most recent parole hearing for serial killer, Clifford Olson. We are all familiar with the horrendous crimes that he has committed, and I have no wish to give him any more attention than he has already received. I do, however, want to speak to the emotional toll that parole hearings like this one can have on victims of crime.

I imagine you have all, to some extent, followed this issue in the media. Clearly, based on the offender's comments to the victims of crime, he has no remorse for what he has done or compassion for the loss his victims' families face. Regardless, he is currently entitled to apply for parole every two years, which means that the families of his victims have to face, again and again, their devastating loss.

I can tell you, after talking with Sharon Rosenfeldt, that these hearings can be very difficult. Some victims choose not to participate in parole hearings, but for those who do, preparing victim impact statements and sitting in the same room with the offender who stole the life of a son or daughter can make wounds fresh again. And the impact of that hearing is not limited to just the two days the parole board meets and makes its decision. It comes years in advance when victims know that an offender's parole ineligibility period is coming to an end. It comes months in advance when the victims are advised that the offender will be having a hearing and they need to prepare. And it continues after the hearing as families try to continue to heal. These hearings involve time, cost, and often travel for victims. For those who may be unwell or who have medical issues, this can be especially challenging.

Clearly, our justice system must be fair to all parties involved. I am not suggesting that offenders should never be eligible for parole, but in cases like these, Bill C-48 would give judges an additional tool to help ensure that victims are not subjected to this process without reason.

Finally, though I support this bill in its current form, I would also like to make two small recommendations for consideration. My understanding is that Bill C-48, for judges who choose not to impose consecutive ineligibility periods, states that they must provide the reasons for their decision orally or in writing. While I am aware that these decisions become a matter of public record and would leave this to the experts to discuss, I would recommend that this be amended to ensure that, first, victims are provided with the explicit right to this information should they desire it, and that, second, even in cases where a judge decides that an offender's parole ineligibility should be served consecutively, these reasons are also required to be given orally and in writing and the victims are provided the explicit right to this information should they desire it.

In conclusion, it is my view that Bill C-48 will have a positive impact on victims of crime and their families. Providing judges with the discretion to apply consecutive, rather than concurrent parole ineligibility will help ensure accountability for each life lost, and, where appropriate, will delay and in some cases prevent the trauma and devastation victims experience when faced with parole hearings.

Victims deserve a voice in the criminal justice system. I hope I have successfully helped in bringing that voice to you for consideration here today.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I reconvene the meeting. We're continuing our study of Bill C-48.

It's my pleasure to welcome to our table again Ms. Suzanne O'Sullivan, who is our recently appointed Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Welcome back. You have 10 minutes to present, if you wish, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Have you received any submissions from your members on Bill C-48?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

When you put it in terms of risk, that's quite right. But when you simply say that it's a stand-alone qualification, I don't think so.

How many submissions have you received from your members on Bill C-48?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

If I understand you correctly, and I agree with you, we cannot broaden the scope of Bill C-48. It is one or the other.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Murphy raised a point, but I wonder how we could amend the bill. According to section 745.51, the judge's discretionary power deals with his allowing or denying the application. That would mean 25 more years before a person is eligible. However, I believe Bill C-48 cannot allow for less than 25 years, as that does not appear in the bill. There would have to be an amendment to 745.2 or the beginning of 745, but that is not what we have here. Unfortunately, I was not expecting it, but it would seem to me, if my memory serves me correctly and based on what we have here, that the judge has no other choice. It is one or the other, either you grant discretionary power or not. I do not know if you agree with me or not. Otherwise, we would need to amend the beginning of section 745.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I can tell you that you are not going to win this fight. To answer your question, it is going to be very difficult, given the position of the various political parties in this room, to prevent the passage of Bill C-48. Unfortunately, it will pass.

There is only one aspect of this bill that I find reassuring. It is the addition of section 745.51, giving judges some discretionary power, as you rightly pointed out. To respond to your first question, do you know why the Conservatives absolutely want this bill to pass? You simply have to read the short title, section 1, and you will understand their entire philosophy. In fact, they will get back to it later on. The section reads as follows: “This act may be cited as the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act”. That is quite something, isn't it! Obviously, that is the only thing some of us may agree on. Regardless, on this side of the table, we want to stop the passage of section 1. That is more or less it. I will tell you why.

The discretion provided in section 745.51 reassures me. I do not know how to ask you this question, dealing with violence in penitentiaries. I have probably done what you do today. I practiced criminal law for a number of years and defended individuals accused of murder, among other things. If there is no light at the end of the tunnel, if they see no likelihood of release, do you seriously believe that rehabilitation is possible, especially in double murder cases?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 40 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, December 2, 2010. You've got before you the agenda for today. Today we're reviewing Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

For the first hour we have with us the Criminal Lawyers' Association, represented by Joseph Di Luca, vice-president.

During the second hour of our meeting we hope to have with us Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Back to our first witness, Mr. Di Luca. Welcome back to our committee. I think you understand the drill. You have ten minutes, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I would remind you we aren't discussing Bill C-48 specifically. We're talking about the supplementary estimates--

[John Giokas]

Let me deal with the second comment first. The Criminal Code already states in section 745 that in the case of a first-degree murder, it's a mandatory 25 years, and if somebody commits another first-degree murder, it's a mandatory 25 years, and so on.

The issue right now is that those 25 years are served concurrently. What we're doing in the case of first-degree murder is giving the judge the discretion to make the mandatory periods of 25 years consecutive. This is already set out in the code. It's also set out in section 745 that in the case of a second-degree murder, where somebody has already been convicted of another murder, whether it's first or second degree, it is also an automatic 25 years.

So the 25-year period is already established in the Criminal Code. All Bill C-48 does is allow a judge to make the periods consecutive, based on criteria that judges are already using to make a decision that is similar in kind, namely, whether to extend a minimum 10-year sentence to 25 years in the case of a single second-degree murder.

[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.

[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.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm fine with giving the Finance Department more time to prepare its budget, as long as it's a good one.

We have tabled an amendment to this motion which we fundamentally support. A copy of the amendment has been distributed. After paragraph eight, the longest paragraph which begins with “That the committee also orders” and ends with “consequential amendments to other acts”, we would like to add a request for information about four other bills, namely C-48, C-50, C-51and C-52.

This amendment would essentially tie everything together as far as these bills are concerned. We have Bill C-48 which amends the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting sentence discounts; Bill C-50 which also amends the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting investigative tools for serious crimes; Bill C-51 which pertains to investigative powers for the 21st century; and Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations.

Mr. Chair, having this committee look at this is an excellent idea, as ours is a very important House committee. That is why you were appointed chair. Not just anyone is given that honour.

We support the motion, with the four added changes which I think all members, including Mr. Wallace, will unanimously agree to.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating Bill C-48, which is about making sure that multiple murderers are not given one sentence but multiple sentences to reflect every life taken. I have no idea what relevance the member's intervention could have to the point at issue.

I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona appreciates me shutting down the member for pontificating and using extra words that have absolutely no relevance to the issue we are dealing with today.