This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Peter MacKay Conservative
Second reading (House), as of June 19, 2015
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make a life sentence of imprisonment without eligibility for parole mandatory for high treason and for planned and deliberate murders that are referred to in subsection 231(4), (5) or (6.01) of that Act or in which the accused’s behaviour, associated with the offence, is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the accused’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to give a judge the discretion to impose a life sentence of imprisonment without eligibility for parole for any other first degree murder and for any second degree murder if the accused was previously convicted either of murder or of an offence referred to in section 4 or 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act that had as its basis an intentional killing. The enactment provides that the court’s decision is to be based on the accused’s age and character, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and any jury recommendation.
The enactment also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow an offender who is sentenced to life without parole to apply for executive release after serving 35 years of their sentence. Executive release is granted or denied by the Governor in Council.
Finally, the enactment makes related and consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, since this is one of the last times I will rise in the House, I would like to thank the people of Pontiac for placing their trust in me. I humbly hope that they will do so again in the next election.
With respect to the question I would like to ask my colleague, it seems to me that this is not the first time public safety issues have been politicized. I would still like to know where to find the facts and the statistics that this bill is based on.
Did my hon. colleague find any?
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, there are no facts, and the Conservatives are fearmongering. They want to use this bill to win political points for their campaign over the summer. This bill is flawed and very problematic.
Not only does the current system protect Canadians from the possibility of the most dangerous criminals returning to our communities, but studies also show beyond a shadow of a doubt that extreme penalties are not deterrents.
We would sure like to know why the government introduced a bill that has no basis in fact.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, what a sensitive subject this is, and we are debating it in the context of a bill that was introduced at the very last minute. If there is one thing I find absolutely fascinating about my work here, which I feel very fortunate to do, thanks to the support and trust of the people of Trois-Rivières, it is the opportunity I have to learn so much about a whole range of subjects that are not necessarily in my area of expertise.
The subject we are dealing with this morning is a good example. I am not a lawyer or a criminal law expert, but in Ottawa, thank goodness, all members are lucky enough to have access to expertise, experience and relevant information. These things allow us not only to form an opinion, but also educate people who may be watching regarding the ins and outs of a bill like the one before us now.
If I were an ordinary citizen and a government said that its bill would enhance public safety, I imagine that I would probably start listening and I would likely believe that there must be some truth in there somewhere. Based entirely on facts, however, what we have before us is a bill that is designed purely to win votes and promote an ideology that is clearly the polar opposite of the NDP's ideology. The entire population, all Quebeckers and Canadians, will have to make their decision on October 19.
The Conservative government is proposing a vision of a society based on fear. I hope I will have time later to give some clear examples that directly relate to some election fundraising campaigns, for example, which have nothing to do with the substantive issue or the NDP's vision, which proposes developing a society based on public safety.
The Conservatives just introduced Bill C-53, which—to remind those who may not have been following this debate from the beginning—will make life imprisonment without parole mandatory for the crimes of first degree murder and high treason. However, life imprisonment without eligibility for parole is widely regarded as unconstitutional.
To plug the holes in their bill, the Conservatives included a clause that gives offenders a chance for parole after 35 years in prison. Parole will not be granted on the merits of the case or after a thorough review by the Parole Board, but after an application is made to the minister, because the minister is some sort of expert on this. I do not want to make any assumptions about the next Minister of Public Safety, but the current minister does not inspire a lot of confidence in me when it comes to making these types of decisions and leaving partisanship out of it.
Instead of spreading misinformation and electoral propaganda, the Conservatives should tell Canadians the truth. Under the current system, the most dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety never get out of prison. This bill is partisan to say the least, if not full-blown propaganda. The government's goal here is to give the impression that it is tough on crime, when it knows that these measures will have little to no real effect on the situation.
What is the current state of the situation in this area? For the benefit of those watching us I will briefly describe our system as it pertains to people convicted of first degree murder. An offender convicted of first degree murder is not eligible for parole for 25 years. I want to emphasize that “eligible” does not mean he will get parole, but that he can apply for it. It is up to the Parole Board to grant parole or not. We will come back to the conditions.
Protecting society is the primary criterion on which the Parole Board bases its decision to grant parole. Even if the offender is granted parole, he will spend his whole life reporting to a Correctional Service Canada officer. In other words, the current system already includes mechanisms for making public safety the priority.
The Criminal Code already includes special provisions to ensure that dangerous offenders do not threaten our safety.
If they are deemed to pose a serious risk to society, these inmates can be sentenced to an indeterminate prison term. That seems to be quite clear and strict. Public safety is the goal for this side of the House.
As we are on the eve of an election campaign, the Conservatives will use any means to fundraise and score political points, and there are still people who believe in that approach. I will just mention one example. On the day this bill was announced, the member for Scarborough Centre sent her constituents an email with the very moderate subject line: “Murderers in your neighbourhood?” That is their approach. Once again, the Conservatives' cynicism is in full view, and they are resorting to propaganda and fear-mongering. Instead, the NDP is focusing on safety.
Instead of engaging in blind partisanship, the government should instead listen to the findings of experts. I would like to elaborate on the expertise I mentioned earlier. A number of studies indicate that extreme sentences are not the solution to crime. That is backed up by statistics. After the death sentence was abolished, the murder rate dropped by 50%. That is rather curious. Here is what the Correctional Investigator of Canada had to say about that:
When you take all hope away from somebody, you don't give them any incentive to follow rules or to be at all productive and to contribute in any way.
A criminal can be released on parole and reintegrate into society. As I already mentioned, our current system has several provisions that protect society from the actions of these dangerous criminals.
In this case, there is no confusion. Everyone in the House agrees that it is important to protect society.
How will this bill protect us any better than the existing provisions of the Criminal Code? That is an interesting question. Did the government introduce this bill to do a better job of that? That is a question that the government has completely failed to answer.
According to Allan Manson, a law professor at Queen's University, there is a good chance that this bill is unconstitutional. Why? First, many studies have shown the negative effects of long-term incarceration. Prisons are becoming more dangerous for the people who work there. Second, this bill lacks a penal objective. The bill may in fact violate the very principle of fundamental justice.
If the Conservatives start breaking the backbone of our justice system, then they are doing exactly the opposite of what other democracies are doing in their legislation. It is often a good idea to compare ourselves to other countries to see whether we are heading in the right direction. However, is seems that the Conservatives are once again going against the tide.
Bill C-53 shows that public safety is not the Conservatives' primary concern. They would rather raise money through fearmongering and cobble together bills that are not based on evidence. The NDP is strongly opposed to that way of doing things. We want all criminal measures to be based on facts. We will ensure that our criminal measures seek only to enhance public safety.
We are deeply committed to the independence of justice. That is why only the appropriate authorities should decide whether an individual is eligible for parole. On the contrary, as they do in almost all of their bills, the Conservatives are once again placing more and more power in the hands of ministers, when those ministers are not necessarily qualified to exercise those powers.
I will stop there because time is flying by. That is too bad because I still had a ton of things to say. I will likely have a chance to talk more about this as I answer my colleagues' questions.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point that I had asked the Conservative member. That is in regard to the fact that here we have legislation that comes across as being really tough on crime, but in reality it is marginal at very best. It is well criticized. I believe that all opposition parties are in opposition to the legislation.
We are in the dying days of the session. Yet, we have very serious issues in our communities in the different regions of the country. I, for example, talk a great deal about what sort of programming we should be doing, and what sort of leadership Ottawa could be playing in terms of coming up with ideas and programs that would get youth out of gangs and into our communities in a more positive way. This is where I believe the government has fallen short.
I wonder if the member might want to take a side step from the bill and provide some comment in terms of the whole idea of preventing crimes from happening in the first place.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I have to tell him that he seems to have inadvertently fallen for the trap.
In the preamble to his question he mentioned that the Conservative government comes across as being really tough on crime, but they are not. They would love to have us believe that they are tough on crime and that they are stronger than all the other parties. However, it is Canada's own system that is strong, and the measures proposed in Bill C-53 contribute absolutely nothing to our existing public safety regime.
The Conservatives have launched a branding campaign and are trying to make the public believe that they are tougher on crime than the other parties, when that is not the case. The truth is that they are more partisan on crime issues than the other parties.
We will continue to protect public safety, as the existing measures already do. Bill C-53 adds nothing. Moreover, as members of Parliament from Quebec, I think we have made it quite clear that we must focus on real solutions such as prevention, support and rehabilitation measures in order to lower crime rates across the country and to ensure that our communities feel safe instead of afraid.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, this bill reminds me of pharmaceutical companies that are randomly searching for new molecules, and as soon as they make a discovery they try to match it with a disease. It is nothing but improvisation.
On the other side of the House, the Conservatives claim that hundreds of dangerous criminals will go out and murder people in their homes at night. This theory has absolutely no factual or scientific basis. Even if this theory had some kind of basis and if hundreds of criminals ended up in prison up to the age of 102, what does allowing these hypothetical hundreds of seniors to die in prison do for society? It makes no sense. It is designed solely to win votes, and that is its only merit.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his analogies, which always bring smiles to our faces or at least a bit of a smirk.
To pick up on his analogy about big drug companies, the big difference is that in their search for molecules, they sometimes find them, and while research aimed at finding a drug to treat one disease can fail, it can result in a drug to treat another disease. In the case before us today, for one thing, nothing is ever found, and for another, there is not much to fix because the parole system as a whole does not permit automatic parole for dangerous criminals after 25 years. That is all there is to it. Members of an organization not bound by politics judge whether applications can be approved, and their number one criterion is always public safety. Those people are not politicians. They are experts.
Parole is a conditional release. Offenders might not be granted parole, but if they are, it comes with conditions that they must fulfill for the rest of their lives.
As I said, the number one criterion is always public safety, not creating a climate of fear for the purpose of raising money.
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank all of my colleagues in the House for this last four years and a bit. This has been a great session of Parliament. I know a number of people have made a decision not to come back, but I would also recognize some of those people who have made decision to come here, in spite of ill health, to serve the country and their constituents. It has been a real pleasure to be here with them.
I rise today to talk about our government's highest purpose. What should that purpose be of any government? It is the protection of Canadians, ensuring our streets and communities, and our country are safe for honest, law-abiding people as we live, work and raise our families.
At all times, our government has endeavoured to ensure that our system of criminal justice reflects both this high purpose and the values and priorities of Canadians more broadly. For example, to give victims of crime a stronger voice we introduced and passed our Victims Bill of Rights Act. For too many years the welfare of the criminal was held up as a highest priority of criminal justice. This historic legislation, the Victims Bill of Rights, puts innocent victims back to where they should have been all along, at the very heart of our system of justice.
We have also changed laws regarding people deemed not criminally responsible for violent acts, ensuring that while dangerous offenders with mental illness receive the care they need, we also take care of the safety of the public.
Reflecting the values of Canadians also means that both the gravity of the offence and the need to protect Canadians must be considered in sentencing. That is why we got rid of the faint hope clause that allowed killers to apply for early parole. That is why when the criminal kills more than one person, under our law, judges can now impose consecutive sentences and take every lost life into account. That is why we have made it easier to deport foreign criminals from Canadian soil and have made it more difficult for them to enter the country in the first place. That is why we have made it easier to remove dangerous foreign criminals from Canada's shores and to make it more difficult for them to even get here in the first place. That is why we have toughened penalties, including creating mandatory prison sentences for many serious violent offences, in particular sex crimes against children.
When we say all of these things, let us be clear: we desire the rehabilitation of all criminals. However, certain criminals are too cruel and too dangerous to be released. When people break the laws and pay their debt to society, our hope is always for permanent rehabilitation. No one wants to see anyone degenerate into a lifetime of crime, but there are some criminals, the most dangerous and violent offenders, whose actions mean we cannot risk putting them back on our streets. However, as the law stands, sometimes we do.
Bill C-53 would end this practice, specifically for criminals who prey on society's most vulnerable, plotting kidnapping or sexual assault that ends in murder; criminals with such contempt for law and order that they kill correctional or police officers charged with that protection; criminals who so despise our values and our way of life that they carry out deadly acts of terrorism and high treason; and criminals whose crimes are so horrific that they shock the conscience of the entire community. The freedom of these criminals would compromise the freedom of everyone around them.
The suffering of the victims of such horrific crimes and the suffering of those who love them is bad enough. However, when the whole truth is known, they find out that the crime could have been prevented in the first place, that the crime should have been prevented but it was not, that the perpetrator was someone who could have been, should have been, securely behind bars. When that is discovered, at that moment their anguish, compounded by disbelief, becomes outrage, not just to them but to the entire country. Then we are all left to wonder what justice really means.
Canadians ask, rightly, why the most dangerous killers once in prison should ever be free again only to threaten our children, our families, our friends, our neighbours and our fellow citizens. It is very hard to argue with that, and our government has no intention of arguing with it. This sort of thing must end in our country.
The fact is that there are certain criminals who should never be allowed to walk the streets, where we and our neighbours live and work, or in the streets where our children play.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. Regrettably, I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary at this point. He will have 15 minutes remaining, if and when this matter returns before the House.