Bill C-587 (Historical)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for bringing this bill forward. As he mentioned, this was a bill that I introduced in the first session of this Parliament and because of my appointment as parliamentary secretary, my bill had to be withdrawn, although it did make it to committee. Therefore, I would hope that members will expedite this process so we can get this to committee, where it was a year ago.

Sitting here listening especially to the Liberal member really was disappointing. At no point did he mention the victims, not once. It comes back to this whole ideology of the Liberals about hugging the thug, about trying to protect the criminals rather than protecting Canadians and those victims.

The title of the bill is “respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act”. It is work that I started some time ago, and I am very happy that my friend from Okanagan—Shuswap has taken on this task in the House to ensure that families do not have to go through unnecessary Parole Board hearings and be re-victimized time and time again. Let us ensure we have our hearts in the right place, that they are with the families that have already lost their loved ones and now have to relive the horror of the most heinous criminals who have not only murdered their child or family member, but may have abducted and sexually assaulted them.

The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code. I have to stress that Bill C-587 is about empowering our courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and often most vulnerable Canadians from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years. It is at the discretion of the courts. They make the decisions on whether to take it up any higher.

The bill is not about creating stiffer penalties for these sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts do not qualify for parole. We have already mentioned that. The worst case criminals who are in prison, these half dozen individuals who have been alluded to, never make parole. They never ever get out of jail. However, the reality is that families still have to go, every two years, starting at year 23, to hear the tragedy of their child or loved one being abducted, kidnapped, raped, sometimes tortured, and then murdered. We want to put an end to that. The bill is about saving the families of victims from having to go through this agony of attending these unnecessary and traumatic experiences at Parole Board hearings.

Again, we have said that this is not about mandatory minimums. This is about empowering judges and juries in coming to reasonable decisions on parole ineligibility.

Let us talk about this. Is this constitutional? Does it comply with the charter? The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The seriousness of the offence as set out in the bill would ensure that parole ineligibility, period, would only be applied in cases where the murderer's moral blame worthiness would be very high for abduction, sexual assault and murder. This would allow for judicial discretion and would ensure charter compliance because it would not be mandatory minimums.

This goes back to Bill C-48, which used the same principle, protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts by multiple murderers act. It is important to note that the NDP supported that bill back in 2011. That, in itself, is noteworthy. If it was okay to support it in Bill C-48 back in 2011, I would hope the NDP would support that same principle when it applies to these most heinous criminals.

Jim Maloway, who was the NDP member at that time for Elmwood—Transcona said:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to what is now is Bill C-48 [...]. I essentially support the bill, which our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has already indicated that our party supports. In fact, all opposition parties support the bill. [...]

I guess one of the good things about the bill is that it does leave discretion to the judge, which opposition members have been consistent in supporting in the past. Perhaps the government recognized that by allowing the judge discretion it made it certain that the bill would actually go somewhere in the House.

The compliance section that we are concerned about is section 12 of the Charter, and by going the route that is presented in Bill C-587, providing that judicial discretion makes it charter compliant. That is key.

As we are saying, this is about the most heinous and horrendous individuals we have in Canada. We are talking about Robert Pickton, Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams, Michael Rafferty, Terri-Lynne McClintic, Clifford Olson, Donald Armstrong, James Dobson, David Shearing and, just recently, Luka Magnotta. These individuals are repulsive in our society. They have committed the most tragic criminal acts on an individual that people could ever imagine. Yet, there is argument coming forward that they should only have to sit there for 25 years. We know that they sit there longer because they never ever make parole eligibility. They are never put back into society.

In the sentencing of David Threinen, in 1975, Justice Hughes, who was the judge at the time, stated he should “never again should he be on the streets and roadways of our country”.

If judges already see how repulsive and dangerous these offenders are, then they need to make sure that they are never released back into society.

When we look at Robert Pickton, he was convicted of multiple murder charges, 25 counts, but unfortunately they were only second degree murder charges. That means 10 years. In 10 years, he can start attending his parole board hearings. He will probably never be released, but that means that 25 families are going to be reading victim impact statements at parole board hearings every two years, in a matter of a couple of years from now. That is sickening.

One of the reasons I was thinking about this case is that a few years ago I was in my riding listening to the Tori Stafford case. She was the little girl who was abducted, raped, and murdered. It broke my heart. It involved Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic. After they stole her from school and sexually assaulted her, they killed her with a hammer. Terri-Lynne McClintic got a life sentence, in 2010. Michael Rafferty got his life sentence. Tori Stafford's family, in 25 years, should not have to start reliving that murder, that abduction, that sexual assault, every two years from there on in.

We talked about Russell Williams, who abducted, raped, and murdered Jessica Lloyd and Marie-France Comeau. We talked about Clifford Olson.

I have to thank Sharon Rosenfeldt. I got involved with her and her organization, Victims of Violence. She supported the bill right from the beginning. Her son Daryn was murdered. My friend has already talked about how Daryn was killed and how they were retraumatized.

I also have to thank Susan Ashley, who also provided me with support and ideas for the bill, and Yvonne Harvey, from the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children, for their work on this bill as well, and ensuring that Canadians are aware that this was coming forward.

Finally, I want to thank Senator Boisvenu, who founded the organization Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association because of his own person loss, for his support in ensuring that the bill will go forward on the Senate side.

Again, I would ask that members of this House to support the bill and get it to committee so it can be given the proper study.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-587, which was introduced by a Conservative member.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years, as determined by the judge.

This bill is basically a reincarnation of Bill C-478, which was introduced last year and then struck from the order paper when the member sponsoring it became a parliamentary secretary. Bill C-587 is designed to extend the parole ineligibility period depending on the severity of the crime, not the number of crimes committed or the number of victims.

I am opposed to this bill. While it seems well-intentioned, it is unnecessary, ineffective and open to attack in court. That is what I will be demonstrating.

As I already mentioned, Bill C-587 is basically the same as Bill C-478, which was not passed by Parliament.

The first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Steve Sullivan, did not have a very high opinion of the bill. He felt it was nothing but smoke and mirrors. If someone is accused of first-degree murder, the Crown does not generally concern itself with lesser offences. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with a chance of parole after 25 years, this already takes into account that if the person represents a danger or a risk, they will not be granted parole.

I would also like to point out that criminals targeted in this bill, people like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Russell Williams, are rare cases. They have already been sentenced to life in prison without Bill C-587.

Take Clifford Olson, for example. He murdered 11 people. After serving 25 years in prison, he applied for parole for the first time in 2006. His application was denied, as was his second in 2008. In 2010, his third application was also denied because the court found that he still represented a danger to society. He ended up spending 30 years of his life behind bars, where he died in 2011.

The bill before us will have no real impact on the legal reality in this country. Offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder are very rare. They are well known because their stories get so much media attention. Bill C-587 will not change anything. These offenders will still stay behind bars.

The legality of the bill is the other point I want to address. First, I would like to point out that the 25-year period was not determined arbitrarily. Paragraph 110 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states that life in prison is the maximum sentence, but that it must be reviewed after 25 years.

Therefore, international law does not allow for life sentences without eligibility for parole, even for the most serious crimes, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. This is probably why Canada set the maximum parole ineligibility period at 25 years, even for the worst cases of first degree murder.

Other states often look to Canada to learn from its principles of justice et its criminal justice. We are off to a bad start if we begin to renege on our international treaties to pass cosmetic bills.

What international law imposes, and what Canada decided to apply, is a maximum prison term of 25 years, which applies to all crimes. Our role is not really to say which crimes are most serious. Rather, it is to define the rule of law. Moreover, this bill undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court has yet to render a decision on the constitutionality of extending this maximum period in the case of consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders.

Extending the ineligibility period from 25 to 40 years for murders involving abductions and sexual assault would probably be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

In the case of Bill C-478, the carbon copy of Bill C-587, we asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to check compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives voted against that and we were not able to do that study.

If Bill C-587 is challenged in court, taxpayers will again have to pay for even higher legal costs. The whole issue will end up before the Supreme Court, as it often happens already.

Since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen an increase in court action. There are challenges not only by the provinces, but also from the Supreme Court with respect to the compatibility and constitutionality of certain Conservative bills.

It should be noted that Bill C-587 continues the Conservative government's tradition of presenting measures to amend the Criminal Code through private members' bills introduced by backbench MPs.

We remain concerned about the provisions in Bill C-587 and their compatibility with the charter. Private members' bills are not submitted to the Department of Justice for review as to their compatibility with the charter and the Constitution.

We are opposed to this bill. All though it seems well-meaning, it is unnecessary, ineffective and easy to attack in court. Once again, the Conservatives are just using smoke and mirrors and this could cause more challenges with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I invite all my colleagues to vote against this bill.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is introducing yet another lousy bill. The government should have done a little more research and consulted experts in the matter to draft a better bill.

However, I do understand this government's intention. It must be said that the members across the way do have a genuine and deep desire to protect victims. All parties in the House can agree on that. There is certainly no disagreement between the government and the official opposition on that.

However, for all their zeal, they still have to do things properly. The government must take into consideration current legislation and even other bills that it has introduced.

It would have made more sense to put some of the provisions of this bill into their bill on the Canadian victims bill of rights. Why did the Conservatives not do that? I do not know.

My colleague from Gatineau, who does an excellent job as our party's justice critic, already mentioned that point. I want to commend her for the excellent job she does. I am honoured to have a colleague like her.

Bill C-48, which the member mentioned, was introduced during the previous Parliament. It amended the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. Before the 2011 election, the bill had already been passed at third reading on division—not unanimously, as my colleague claimed. That is an important detail.

At the time, Steve Sullivan, who was the first ombudsman for victims of crime and who supports our position, said that the bill was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If someone is charged with first degree murder, the crown is generally not concerned with less serious offences. When Mr. Olson was found guilty of murdering 11 children, the crown was not concerned with the charges of kidnapping or sexual assault, even though he clearly also committed those crimes. The crown would have had to prove each crime and could have used that to encourage a plea bargain, but it still depends on the judge's willingness to sentence someone to more than 25 years, which Mr. Sullivan thinks is unlikely.

He does not think that many judges would sentence a criminal to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. He does not think that judges would do this. As a caveat, I want to point out that nearly all modern democratic countries offer the possibility of parole.

In the bill we are examining today, judges retain their discretion, so how is this a solution to the problem the member who introduced this bill is trying to solve?

Mr. Sullivan also went on to say that, when offenders are sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years, it is understood that they will not be granted parole if they represent a danger or a risk.

This affects a very small number of offenders, specifically those who abduct, sexually assault and murder someone. These sordid crimes are rather rare. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Bernardo are examples of offenders who fall into this category. This measure would be used, at the most, only a few times a year, but it would not change anything for the families of victims.

We should listen to the opinion of the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. It is clear that Mr. Sullivan thinks that this bill does not do enough and would be useless. That is unfortunate.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

If the member would like to continue his speech when we come back to this bill, he will have three minutes and 50 seconds.

It being 1:58 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:58 p.m.)

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, outlined in considerable detail the Liberal Party position on this, another private member's bill from a government backbencher, or the government side of the House, that we believe leads to a completely disjointed approach to amending the Criminal Code.

Bill C-587 would amend the Criminal Code to increase the parole ineligibility from 25 years to a maximum of 40 years for persons convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim. The short title of the act is the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act.

I believe this to be another initiative by the Conservative backbench to weaken the coherence of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The hon. member in whose name this bill resides is introducing a bill that, in my view, is a solution in search of a problem. If one were to be overly cynical, this private member's bill is a solution in search of a fundraising letter.

The member will know that much of what his political party is really concerned with is raising money from its political base on the subject of choice. That subject seems to be one that is enamoured with “get tough on crime” but certainly not “get smart on crime”.

This is not unlike the Conservative approach to veterans in Canada, an approach where symbolism is more important than substance. We saw reports just the other night that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is spending another $4 million on self-promoting ads, all the while continuing to ignore the real problem affecting our veterans.

I read the minister's speech, and while the hon. member might have good intentions, I again repeat that the legislation is a solution in search of a problem. In his speech, we heard a lot of rhetoric about the need to be tough on criminals. Absent from his speech, and the Speaker would know this, is any discernible connection between his bill and what we refer to on our side as “evidence and facts”.

Allow me to raise a couple of points of serious concern. These issues surround the legality and constitutionality of this legislation and what assurances can be provided to the House as to whether the government's private member's bill meets those basic requirements.

In that regard, I would like to place on the record that, speaking today for the Liberal Party, we will expect that the member sponsoring this bill will table with the House or with the committee examining the bill a written legal opinion as to the fact that this bill would withstand legal or constitutional challenges.

If the member is unable to provide such written legal opinion, I would direct this request to the government itself, to have the Department of Justice examine this legislation and produce a legal opinion that declares that the bill would withstand a legal or constitutional challenge.

I say that should be done before the committee hears witnesses. We have heard members say that it is not possible, but that is what the committee needs.

My experience on the public safety committee is that a Conservative backbench member introduces a private member's bill, and witnesses are called in on the private member's bill. The witnesses believe that the bill is as was outlined originally.

After the hearings are basically over, on the last day of the hearings, the Department of Justice, or in our case, the Department of Public Safety, comes in with a series of amendments, and there are usually more amendments than there are clauses in the bill.

I submit that on two of the bills—and I have put this to you before, Mr. Speaker—the intent was really changed, but the witnesses do not know the bill was really changed. They appeared on a bill that was substantially amended by the Department of Justice because the Department of Justice is trying to make it so that it is not legally or constitutionally challenged. However, the witnesses actually believe that what was passed was what they submitted on. The private member from the Conservative backbench, of course, carries on the spin that they really did what the original bill intended, which in my case at the public safety committee certainly did not happen.

I said earlier that the bill is a solution in search of a problem. Let us look at one of the facts. Bill C-587 would increase the ineligibility for parole for a conviction that includes a sentence of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. In the last 20 years there have been only three cases in Canada that would meet the three elements of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. Let me repeat, there were just three cases that would have triggered the provisions of Bill C-587 had it been in place 20 years ago. In those three cases there is no indication that the judges acted with leniency.

[James Bezan]

—more than that.

[Hon, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says there were more than that. That member should show us, prove it, give us some facts and give us the legal and constitutional opinion before we hear witnesses.

The concerns I and my colleagues have with this legislation are the following. First, it would eliminate one of the only incentives for a certain class of violent offender to behave well in prison, thereby making prisons more dangerous for inmates and correctional officials. The Conservatives will say we are in favour of these offenders. No, we are not. We are talking about public safety and safety in our prisons. We are talking about making the system work. We are talking about being smart on crime, not just this agenda of taking a little piece here and a little piece there and at the end of the day we will have a disjointed Criminal Code of Canada.

Canadian law already exists to deal harshly with the few persons convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering someone. Such persons receive mandatory life sentences.

Currently, every criminal in Canada becomes eligible for parole after 25 years at the most. The bill would defy common sense by punishing a specific class of murderer more harshly than serial killers and persons who have committed genocide and crimes against humanity.

I just want to raise a couple of points. I had the opportunity this summer to meet a number of times with the folks from the justice centre in the U.S. When they are looking at trying to improve public safety and reduce recidivism, make streets safer and be smart on crime, this is what they say in their publication of April:

A number of those states have responded with “justice reinvestment” strategies to reduce corrections costs, revise sentencing policies, and increase public safety. Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach that ensures that policymaking is based on a comprehensive analysis of criminal justice data and the latest research about what works to reduce crime.

They go on to say that the biggest return on the investment in public safety comes from not just focusing on incarceration, but treatment programs and supervision priorities on the people likely to commit a future crime.

What I am saying—

[James Bezan]

What about the victims' rights?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, we are not saying—

[James Bezan]

What about the families? What about the victims?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the chirping coming from the other side means that clearly they do not want to hear the facts. They do not want to hear what works.

We are saying that we should look at the facts and the evidence. We should have the proper legal and constitutional analysis on the bill before witnesses come before the committee, and then let us analyze the bill in that way.

Let us do something that actually works, rather than just the rhetoric that the minister is chirping across the aisle.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained in the private member's bill before us today. The amendments contained in Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Shuswap, are based on the same fundamental idea that underlies many recent legislative initiatives passed by Parliament, which is the interests of victims of crime and of their families and loved ones.

That fundamental proposition is a straightforward one. Families and loved ones of murder victims should not become the secondary victims of a convicted murderer by being forced to relive the details of their terrible loss every time the killer applies for parole.

As hon. members may recall from past debates, both first and second degree murder are punishable by life imprisonment, subject to a period set out in section 745 of the Criminal Code, during which the murderer may not apply for parole. While all murders are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murder are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with first degree murder that justifies the longer mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While the mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility for second degree murder is 10 years, it may be increased in two situations.

First, if a second degree murderer has been convicted of a prior murder or of an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the parole ineligibility period will be automatically set for the same as first degree murder, namely 25 years. In such cases, the fact that the murderer has killed before is considered to increase his or her moral blameworthiness up to the level of a first degree murderer.

Second, even if the second degree murderer has not killed before, a judge has the discretion under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code to impose a period of parole ineligibility of up to 25 years based on the murderer's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard. In short, the higher the degree of moral blameworthiness associated with a second degree murder, the longer the parole ineligibility period that may be imposed to reflect it.

It is important to keep the concept of moral blameworthiness in mind when considering the proposals put forward in Bill C-587. These proposals are directed at the most morally blameworthy of murders, those in which the murder victim has also been subjected to an abduction and to a sexual assault by the murderer. It is hard to imagine a more heinous series of acts committed against the victim.

The issue before us today is that, with the exception of the case of multiple murderers, the maximum parole ineligibility period for murder permitted under the Criminal Code is 25 years. This is true, no matter how terrible the circumstances in which the murder may have been committed.

As for multiple murderers, I am aware that in 2011, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act came into force. These Criminal Code amendments permit a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period on a multiple murderer for the first murder in accordance with the provisions I have already described. The judge will also be authorized to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods of 25 years, one for each victim after the first, to ensure that the lives of each and every victim will be reflected in the sentence ultimately imposed upon the murderer.

In short, this important legislation would help to ensure that no victim's life would be discounted at the time of sentencing.

However, the result of the seemingly arbitrary limit on parole ineligibility of 25 years on those who kill once in the circumstances reflected in Bill C-587 is a symbolic devaluation of the suffering of the murder victim, as well as an apparent disregard of the extreme level of moral blameworthiness exhibited by the murderer. One has only to recall the horrible murder of Tori Stafford by Michael Rafferty to realize the truth of this statement.

The member for Malpeque just said that this bill was a solution in search of a problem. I would ask him to review the terrible circumstances of the murder of that young girl, Tori Stafford, and then stand back up in the House and say whether there is no problem that needs to be addressed. This, in my view, addresses this situation and this problem. This problem has, unfortunately, occurred all too often in Canadian history. That is what we get from the moral equivalence of the Liberal Party.

Allow me to be more specific about what Bill C-587 would do.

First, it would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to require a mandatory parole ineligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of murder who had also been convicted of committing one of the listed kidnapping and abduction offences, as well as one of the listed sexual offences against the murder victim. In short, the 25-year period would only apply if the murderer had been convicted of three offences against the same victim. This would ensure that this measure would be applied only against those whose crimes would justify this level of sanction.

Second, the bill would authorize a sentencing judge to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years based on the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offences and any jury recommendation in this regard.

As I described earlier in the context of second degree murder, these are well-established Criminal Code criteria that permit the judge and jury who have heard the evidence at trial to make this important sentencing decision. Under the existing law, murderers who kidnap and sexually assault their victims already receive long sentences. This would continue to be true under Bill C-587.

However, the bill would also protect families and loved ones of murdered victims from the trauma of repeated parole applications of the murderer. As the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap said, when he introduced this legislation on April 7, “Sadistic criminals convicted of such heinous crimes are never granted parole, thus the hearings are unnecessary and are extremely painful for the victims’ families to endure”.

I will point out the terrible trauma that the victims of Clifford Olson went through when he had multiple parole hearings, even though we all knew, and he knew, that he would never be released. However, every two years, he would require the families of those victims to appear before a Parole Board hearing to go through and relive the horrible murders of their children over and over again.

In short, the bill is not just about creating stiffer penalties for sadistic murderers by allowing a judge to impose up to 40 years of parole ineligibility on the depraved murderers targeted by these measures. This bill is also about saving the families and loved ones of the victims from having to go through the agony of unnecessary and often traumatic Parole Board hearings.

If the member for Malpeque does not believe there is a problem here that needs to be solved, I would ask him to go and speak to the families of some of these victims and hear about the torture that they go through having to relive the awful circumstances of the murders of their loved ones over and over again. I would refer him to Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is the mother of one of Clifford Olson's victims. Perhaps he should speak to her and hear her point of view on this matter.

This is the fundamental proposition at the heart of the important measures proposed in the bill. It is far too often the case that the families and loved ones of victims experience a greater degree of pain and experience a greater sense of loss because the justice system has failed to protect them from being re-victimized every two years when the murderer applies in vein for parole.

Moreover, Bill C-587 is entirely consistent with past legislation passed by the House, such as the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. It ensures that a life sentence of imprisonment for murder means just that: life in prison.

I will point out that in the past the Liberal justice critic has said that if the Liberals were to form a government, they would repeal that law which removed the faint hope clause and they would restore the faint hope clause, allowing murderers like the late Clifford Olson to have those continual Parole Board hearings.

Bill C-587 is also entirely consistent with another piece of important legislation that the House is also being asked to examine, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which was introduced on April 3 of this year. The victims bill of rights would put victims at the heart of the justice system in order to rebalance the scales of justice away from criminals and toward those who have suffered at their hands.

Bill C-587 is yet another example of this long overdue rebalancing. I urge all hon. members to examine it from this point of view. If they do, I am sure they will agree with me that it ought to be moved to the committee and third reading to ensure that it becomes the law of the land in the shortest time possible.

I thank all members for their attention and urge them to come together in the interests of the families and loved ones of the truly horrific crimes targeted by Bill C-587, such as the family of Tori Stafford. I strongly urge all members therefore to give their full support to this bill and ensure its swift passage.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-587 introduced by the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap. I am also very pleased to learn that there is a place in Canada called Shuswap. I looked it up. It seems like a wonderful place. I hope to visit it one day.

Bill C-587 amends our Criminal Code in order to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years.

I will be honest. Discussions on amending the Criminal Code make me uncomfortable and a bit nervous because I am not a lawyer and I do not claim to understand the full extent of these changes. What is more, at first I did not really understand all these different assaults listed in the bill, as though triple heinous crimes were common currency in Canada. Not only that, but it is as though punishment worthy of that name were missing from the Criminal Code in its current form.

Neither of those is the case. I think I am justified in feeling uncomfortable. I find it strange that a backbench MP has introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code. I think the Minister of Justice should be responsible for such important changes, to ensure that the bill can be properly studied. This kind of initiative should be much more formal. This all comes across as cavalier, which worries me.

The idea behind this bill is immediately clear when you read it. It is simply an exaggeration, typical Conservative-style hyperbole. They are looking to hand down excessive or double punishments. They appear to believe that this approach will ease the suffering of victims, whose lives have been turned upside down by crime.

The first ombudsman for victims of crime said that this bill was nothing but smoke and mirrors or an empty promise. He said that the measure would be used at most a few times a year, but would change nothing for the families of victims.

This is a foolish move that is taking us back to the Old Testament philosophy of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The victim's role is being made out to be inalienable. The victim becomes this person in need of assistance, whose constant pain serves as proof that justice is about redemption.

Victims are being forced to remain victims, in order to justify never-ending punishments. By exploiting the pain of this serious crime, they are justifying the need for absolute justice. The crime becomes an eternal act to be relived day after day, in order to satisfy the need to punish over and over. By punishing, we are only selling out our own morals.

I would even venture to say that what is behind this type of discussion on the effectiveness of our Criminal Code, and what is at the very heart of this bill, is an irascible belief in the validity of the death penalty. Real justice is hiding behind that.

Our Constitution prevents us from bringing back the death penalty, but the government is constantly trying to get as close as it can. If it cannot execute someone, it will punish the person threefold. It wants to brandish full, irrevocable punishments. Surely that kind of inflexibility will make us feel better.

However, the experts all agree: our judicial system works very well. We do not need to up the ante in such a completely emotional and unenforceable way. Crime is emotional; justice should not be.

The discussion we are having here today is not a new one. In fact, the record is starting to skip. The Conservative Party wants to appeal to its partisan base, so it introduces bombastic bills on victims' rights, and declares a holy war against crime. Immediately, the NDP is stuck preaching moderation and defending the existing rule of law, and then we are accused of being a bunch of whining patsies who want to rehabilitate Satan himself. We are told, “Oh, the NDP is soft on crime” or “Forgive them, they are a bunch of bleeding heart leftists”.

The reality is that Canada has very little crime to worry about. Maybe the Conservatives are perhaps confusing Canada with the United States. It would not be the first time. What is the fundamental difference between the United States and Canada? It is precisely the fact that we rehabilitate criminals. The sentimentality of the patsies I just mentioned has helped make Canada one of the safest, most peaceful countries in the world.

The Canadian Bar Association said:

...[It] does not believe that Canadians would benefit from a system where individuals are condemned to spend their entire lives behind bars, with no hope of ever being released. Even those convicted of homicide, the most serious of all crimes, should know there is some slim possibility, after serving lengthy periods of their sentence behind bars, of being released into the community and contributing to society, provided that their behaviour while incarcerated makes them deserving of such a privilege.

The most reprehensible notion that would be introduced into the Criminal Code by Bill C-587 is the idea of relativity. Believing that punishment is meted out in an ad hoc manner and that such an indiscriminate criterion has a place in our justice system shows a very poor understanding of that system. Behind it there is the notion that human justice is not enough and that the wrath of God is needed to really vindicate the victims. I am not a lawyer, but I know that the Middle Ages have passed and that the notion of justice has evolved since Spain discovered North America. We are not going to return to outdated practices to please Conservative voters. Justice is a system and not an election platform.

When you remove even the smallest bit of rationality from the justice system, you weaken it. In fact, power is being taken away from judges, who must from now on make decisions based on random concepts. A crime is still a crime. A despicable thing is vile. The only thing that can vindicate us is judicial stability.

How can this notion of seriousness be measured? How can we ensure equality before the law when a notion of relativism is introduced into the equation? I would really like the member for Okanagan—Shuswap to clearly explain that to me. What gap is the bill trying to fill?

At present, in Canada, under Canadian criminal law, it is possible to not be eligible for parole for over 25 years. This is in line with international criminal law. We have adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and this is in keeping with our long tradition as adherents to the rule of law, which is seen around the world as being fair, balanced and exemplary. The Conservatives are systematically damaging that tradition by isolating Canada in the world.

It is deplorable to have to watch our status as mediator crumble because of the actions of this government.

Parole ineligibility is being increased from 25 to 40 years. How will this increase improve our justice system? The only reason to have a sentence like that is as a deterrent, but this is such a rare crime that one would think the laws of civilization would be enough to deter those who might be tempted to kidnap, rape and murder. Yes, these are heinous crimes, but our system already punishes these rare occurrences severely and justly.

This crime is extreme, but that does not mean we need to go to extremes to punish it. It is up to us to be reasonable, not to criminals.

In closing, I will vote against this private member's bill because I think it is time we stopped using victims to make useless changes to our justice system. After all, if the Conservative government wants to make that kind of change to our Criminal Code, all it has to do is introduce a government bill that can be studied as such.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we will oppose this Conservative bill. This bill does nothing for victims, it is unconstitutional and against the charter, and it threatens the integrity of our justice system.

This is a bad bill that the Conservatives are using just to appeal to their electoral base.

I have no doubt in my mind that the member for Okanagan—Shuswap felt morally right to bring this forward in the House and I welcome the debate on this subject. It is something that we should debate. I do believe that the government does not do enough for victims and that the member for Okanagan—Shuswap felt he was doing the right thing in presenting the bill to the House to improve victims' rights.

While I do not think the government is doing enough, I do not think this law exactly responds to victims in the way that it should. I believe the member has presented this in good faith, but I also believe that there are electoral purposes to this that he might not have imagined and that the cabinet of his party agrees with.

In all dealings in the House and in society, we hope that things are done with reason and that we are not led by emotion, especially when we are changing or making laws. When members think about murders, such as that of Leslie Mahaffy, and look at the horrific details, they understand the complexity and horror of these awful crimes and are understandably appalled. Our emotions are touched by the disgusting nature of these crimes. However, I do not think what is being presented here will help the victims of these families, because punishment alone is not what helps heal. I think what the member for Okanagan—Shuswap really wanted to do in presenting the legislation was to get to the main problem of repairing the harm done by a crime.

When horrendous murders are committed, there are tremendous harms done to the families of victims but also to society at large. I remember looking at all the details of the Bernardo case. To think that another Canadian could do that to someone is deeply troubling to us as a society, to the families, and I contend that over the passage of time it is troubling to the criminals as well, even though that is not necessarily apparent right at the time of sentencing.

I believe that we have to start going down a road of contemplating how to heal the harm done by a crime. For that, I would like to bring up the concept of restorative justice. It is an idea that is not based on retribution but rather on the healing of all parties, and not just the healing of the criminal, which is often the knee-jerk reaction, that one just cares about the criminals. It is the healing of the families of victims, the healing of society, and hopefully, eventually, the healing of the criminals. When somebody does something horrendous, we hope they will eventually realize that their actions were wrong and seek some sort of redemption for what they have done. New Democrats believe that with the frame of restorative justice, there is that possibility.

There is a famous proverb that says that hate has never been stopped by hating. This is a truth. Hate never stops through hate. In one who hates, hatred never ceases. Hatred is countered by love. In one who loves, hatred eventually ceases. This is a classic proverb that has been with us for over 2,000 years.

I can hear members on the other side laughing about this. Perhaps they think that I am naive. I am here to try to better our society, to try to heal victims who have been hurt by crime. I do not laugh at the families of these victims. I think they are deeply hurt inside. Their souls are hurt by what has been done to their loved ones.

In looking at restorative justice, I would like to look at a piece written by Max Fisher in the The Atlantic Monthly. He looks at the case of Anders Breivik who killed 77 people in Norway. What happened during Breivik's trial was that he was sentenced to 21 years and it can continue after those 21 years. We can debate the length of the sentence, but the idea is that in Norway there is this idea of restorative justice. In the trial itself the families of the victims were able to testify and share their stories and exchange with each other the damage that was done to them. In so doing, rather than adopting a passive punishment model, those families had the chance to express themselves, how they felt, what the crime did to them, what they lost. They had the solidarity amongst themselves to exchange those stories in a public forum. The fact that it was public allowed Norwegian society to start the healing process.

I am not saying that we should take the model from Norway and just plunk it down here, but I think we should start thinking about these issues carefully. Behind every crime legislation we do, we should be thinking about how we can repair the harm done by a crime. From what I have seen of the Conservative approach, it creates an animosity, with hard on crime, or smart on crime as the Liberals say. I do not actually know what they are talking about when they say smart on crime because they so rarely define their policies on things, but I think we have to get to the heart of the matter, which is how can we reduce the harm done by crime.

Putting someone in jail for 25 years or 40 years will never bring back the loved ones of those families. Those families never had a forum to express themselves during the trial. Because of our system of retribution in the trial system, the families never had the chance to express themselves in a formalized setting and therefore were denied the chance to start the healing process.

I do not believe that just increasing sentences from 25 to 40 years will get to the heart of the harm done by these crimes, because basically the idea is still on the retributive model and still on punishment. In the restorative justice model it is not just about proving or disproving guilt, it is about exorcizing the victim's suffering. I think that is really what the member for Okanagan—Shuswap wanted to do with the bill.

One place we could start is that we could stop demanding that victims go to parole hearings when there is no chance that the perpetrator will get parole. We can change parole legislation instead of sentencing legislation. We can change the forum for parole to make it so that the victims' families do not have to go and relive all the details one more time. I think that would be a better place to start. I suggest the member for Okanagan—Shuswap introduce legislation like this and I would be happy to support it.

The fact is that it is not passive punishment that makes a criminal actively take responsibility for making things right with victims and the community. Once criminals are punished they feel that the sentence has been passed and there is no incentive for them to rehabilitate. However, in the restorative model, as we see in Norway, the victims have that forum during the trial process to exchange stories and let the criminal truly know how he or she has hurt the families of the victims. I think it is a better model. It causes criminals to think about what they have done, to contemplate it right from the beginning of the process of when they are sentenced and go to prison.

The restorative justice model only works if we do not believe or consider retribution to be its own inherent good. Personally, I do not believe retribution to be its own inherent good. I believe that the reason we separate people from society is to keep society safe but also for those people who have done wrong to contemplate what they have done wrong and to try to make things better.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill at this reading.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-587.

I have a couple of brief comments. I think a few Liberals have already spoken to this bill, and as usual, we are looking a bills being presented by the government more out of a fear factor than anything else. Also as usual, the Liberals have to have a proper balance between two sides.

We are going to be supporting the bill, knowing that it is going to committee. There we can review some of the issues surrounding the changes to the Criminal Code that are proposed in this private members' bill. Private members' bills are usually drafted with limited resources and are limited in scope, so we are hoping that the bill does not go beyond the intended scope, deals with the matters at hand, and does not involve any of the areas where it is not meant to be. Liberals will be trying to improve the bill by making sure that all stakeholders are properly represented and that any amendments that are required are at least considered by the government.

Basically the bill would increase parole ineligibility from 25 years to a maximum of 40 years if a person is convicted of such things as abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim. I am from an accounting background. I am not a lawyer. I do not know how many of these cases are out there, but my understanding is that these situations are limited. Sometimes we get mixed up because headlines tell us of vicious and heinous crimes, but often they have not happened here in Canada. Apparently there are a very limited number of cases in which this sort of thing could be considered an issue here in Canada, but the Conservatives are making a huge issue around it. It is more like fearmongering than fact. That is one of the problems we have with these items.

There were some issues that we thought should be looked at during debate or at committee, and the critic for justice, the member for Charlottetown, has brought them to light already.

One problem I see with the bill relates to not providing an individual with hope. I have heard that in a prison atmosphere, some prisoners can make prison life a lot more complicated for people who will not necessarily be spending their whole lifetime in prison. They can make life much more difficult for prisoners who have shorter terms. Giving someone no hope by saying their 25 years is going to go to 40 years is something that should be looked at. I am not sure how all prisons are conducted or how the prisoners are divided, but if some prisoners in a cell block have 25-year sentences and others have less, there are going to be different behaviours in those cell blocks. I hope that will be one of the factors that will be considered.

The second item is that few people are convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. We see it in the headlines every day, but usually we see it in countries to the south of us and in other hemispheres. I am hoping that facts about the number of individuals who will be affected by this measure will be considered, as well as whether the additional cost is going to be appropriate.

My understanding is that the laws in Canada already deal harshly with these situations. Perhaps the idea is to change the 25-year minimum for all eligibility situations and just not have judges use the discretion that they presently have in deciding these matters.

Again, we support this measure, and it should be looked at in committee.

Specific classes of murderers are considered more harshly than serial killers or persons who have committed crimes such as genocide or crimes against humanity. Why should one category of crime be treated differently than another category of crime? These are areas we should spend some time looking at, and I hope that members of all parties will be open to doing that at committee.

I will close my remarks by saying again that I hope the bill is constitutionally sound and that the constitutionality of the bill will be looked at during committee hearings. Hopefully all members, especially members on the government side, will be open to hearing from stakeholders and experts on all sides of the spectrum.