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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Second reading

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow the act of the member for Yorkton—Melville is going to be quite the challenge for me, that is for sure.

Nonetheless, I will do my best.

Since arriving in the House during the current Parliament, I have been upset at how the issue of firearms has been handled, since this topic, which is very important to the members of all the parties in the House, often affects public safety and a part of the population that our friends across the way like to call the “law-abiding hunters of this world”, as though we would not call them that.

The Conservatives also like to claim that the members of the official opposition are against hunters and anything even remotely related to a weapon. As the official opposition justice critic, and like my colleague who talked about public safety and all my NDP colleagues, I think it is important to take this fiercely partisan attitude out of this debate. Often, the way the Conservatives behave is the reason why we cannot give them our support.

For years, they used the gun registry to try to divide Canadians, classifying them as either rural or urban and either hunters or criminals. That is a problem. Other Canadians are also very sensitive to what has happened to the people of Quebec. I was born in Quebec. The massacre at the École polytechnique is part of our daily lives and we are reminded of it every year, especially through stories from parents, victims, friends and everyone who suffered as a result of that terrible tragedy. We also went through the horrific ordeal at Dawson College. As for the events of October 22 that occurred right here, as awful as that experience was, we cannot forget the gunman who entered the National Assembly many years ago and just started shooting.

This is all part of a collective psyche that is very sensitive to the issue of weapons. When a government tries to use something as fundamentally personal for so many people every time it introduces a bill or does some fundraising, it can be hard to see those bills as having much merit. We know that they are under a lot of pressure, since they created it themselves. Let us not kid ourselves.

Not long ago, someone told me that, at the time, even the Prime Minister voted in favour of the firearms registry. There comes a time when people forget the past. That is unfortunate, because the government tends to have a way of ensuring that history repeats itself and of saying absolutely unbelievable things.

Let us remember the events that led to the creation of this registry. Some members will say that we are not here to talk about the registry, but I will explain the connection from start to finish.

The tragedy at École Polytechnique occurred in the 1990s. I was not a member of the House at that time, but as a Quebecker and a Canadian who witnessed that terrible tragedy, I saw politicians clamouring to be the first to respond and put something in place.

Did this registry, which was created by the Liberals, make sense and was it well built? As the member for Yorkton—Melville said, that is certainly the impression people were given. That impression is certainly strengthened by some of the arguments of the members opposite, who have always been happy to say that those who established the registry wanted to criminalize hunters. I have always said that hunters were the innocent victims of the events of the 1990s.

When it comes to an issue such as this, which is so emotional for so many people and so personal for others who live in communities that may not be like the urban area of Gatineau, we need to take a deep breath and examine the situation.

With all due respect for the people and some of my colleagues who like to say that we are opposed to this or that, I really enjoy sitting down with the people of the Gatineau Fish and Game Club. As I already told someone, if you think I put on this weight eating tofu, there's a problem somewhere. I have nothing against meat or hunting.

However, I will always promote public safety. We owe it to Canadians. This government makes a point of boasting about public safety bills at every turn and says that, on this side, we are far too soft and that we do not want to adopt the tough measures that are needed. However, the government brings in all kinds of measures and tries, among other things—I am coming back to the registry—to destroy data that a government that is a partner in the federation had asked for.

The intended result was that the federal government would no longer need the data and that there would be no further criminalization under the Criminal Code. But it took some narrow-minded people and a certain meanness to say that if they were not going to take the data, then we could not have it. That is roughly what happened. The Supreme Court told the government that they had the legal right to do it. Great. However, the government made a political choice and will pay for it. The ruling clearly stated that the federal government made the decision only to harm the provinces. As I have often said, if we are proud to say in the House that the government made a decision that harms a partner of federation, there is a serious problem with Canadian federalism. That is unfortunate.

That said, with respect to Bill C-42, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, we always hear the same kinds of comments from this Conservative federal government and we see that they go through periods of requesting funding from their supporters and from interest groups. These are obviously valid groups. I have nothing against the gun lobby. That is their job. However, it is our job as parliamentarians to not allow ourselves to be pushed around simply because they enjoy it. I will sit down with any lobby, regardless of the side, including those who support not allowing anyone to own a gun under any circumstances. I will listen to what they have to say and I will try to make a decision that makes sense and that has the desired outcome.

We have problems at customs when people cross our borders. We have black markets for guns and all kinds of things. I am not talking about hunters. I am talking about organized crime groups that bring a huge number of weapons into the country. While we argue over the details, we miss doing the important things. Budgets for these crime-fighting measures are being cut.

The government needs to stop laying it on thick and claiming that all we want to do is to prevent hunters, sport shooters and collectors from owning guns and from being able to enjoy them. Similarly, the first nations have inherent rights with respect to hunting and fishing. No one can take those away from them, although some measures in Bill C-42 make me doubt that. This will create some serious problems for the first nations and could undermine some of their inherent rights.

We did not hear many on the Conservative side rise to object to these kinds of things and these kinds of situations. All they do is say that Bill C-42 must be wonderful because it is a government bill. Every time I speak to a bill I always find it amusing to look at the short title. The Conservative Party must pay someone to sit there and come up with bill titles. They have a lot of imagination, and often even more imagination in French than in English. It is rather enlightening when you look at Bill C-42. The English version of the bill states:

“This Act may be cited as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act.”

These words please the rest of Canada, in the ridings of my friends across the aisle, and those of many of my colleagues, too, outside of urban centres. The French title is more likely to please Quebeckers: Loi visant la délivrance simple et sécuritaire des permis d'armes à feu. The French does not use the expression “common sense” and instead refers to safety. This argument might be more successful in Quebec. Sometimes I think the problem with the Conservatives is that the devil is always in the details. As my parents always told me when I was a kid, when someone cries wolf too many times, eventually no one will believe them.

Unfortunately, that is more or less what is happening right now with the federal Conservative government's so-called law and order agenda, or with public safety, or with their haste to send our men and women into a war in Iraq and Syria. The Conservatives have contradicted themselves so many times now that no one is going to believe them any more. When we do not believe them, we cannot stand here and agree with something that does not make any sense.

I have no problem with getting rid of unnecessary paperwork for someone who has a hunting rifle that is used only for hunting and is stored properly. However, other bills from the backbenches seek to change the storage rules. When we add all that up, in an effort to say things to try to please everybody, the Prime Minister seems to be saying that everyone within 100 or 60 kilometres of a major centre should have a gun. He might be on board with that, but I do not think that that is what Canadians want.

That being said, I do not want to stop people who want to lawfully use their rifle for hunting, sport or target practice from doing so. I attend cadet ceremonies and I am extremely proud of Gatineau's cadets when I see them win shooting competitions. I do not think that is due to Nintendo's Duck Hunt. The government has to stop making fun of people for wanting to be careful and make sure that the measures we are adopting do what they are supposed to do.

This bill contains some measures that are cause for concern. Perhaps it was poorly thought out by the Conservatives. I am not certain that they will be able to fix it in committee. That does not seem to be one of the strengths of the Conservatives, or at least of the Conservative members who sit on the committee. With all due respect for the ministers, given the number of times that parliamentary secretaries have told me that they do what they are told, there is no longer any doubt in my mind. I know very well that they have been given their orders, and that they are doing what the powers above have asked them to do in committee. They even tell us, out in the hall, that they think that what we are saying makes sense but that, unfortunately, they cannot approve it. The ministers opposite should not come here and tell us to our faces that they let the committee members do their job. We are trying and we will continue to try to do our job until the end of this Parliament. We are the party of hope, optimism and love. I am still optimistic, but I have had to put hope on hold.

One problematic aspect of this bill is training, and the committee will have to take a close look at what that means for people who live in rural areas where there might not be any trainers. I also hope that some first nations witnesses will be able to share their opinions on Bill C-42 with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

To me, the most problematic part of the bill is the regulatory aspect. I do not claim to be an expert on firearms. Obviously, I do not want dangerous weapons to be available to criminals, but as I was saying earlier, I have no problem with hunters, sport shooters and collectors having guns, as long as they are using them properly. That being said, I think the regulatory aspect is quite problematic.

As we realized at the Standing Committee on Justice, bills are often passed hastily. I am not necessarily talking about the time we spend debating here. What I mean is that the Conservatives have come up with so many bills in some areas, such as justice and public safety, that people at the Department of Justice do not have time to analyze all of the details. I am not saying they are not doing a good job, but there is a limit. If I were a legal adviser and I had 52 files to work on in one week, no matter how good I was, I would have a hard time handling that workload. These people are on a mission.

This week, I asked them if there might be a contradiction between the “Life means life” bill, Bill C-587, and Bill C-53, which would eliminate parole before 40 years. They had to admit that could obviously cause some problems in court.

It is the same thing here. There are many bills that deal with firearms, but I encourage my colleagues in the House to focus on Bill S-2, because it will completely change the way that regulations are enacted. I call it the sleeper bill of this legislature. It seems harmless, but it has serious consequences. Without us even knowing, the government could change the regulations through a minister or delegated authority. I am not saying that that is what is going to happen, but it is a possibility. No one can answer me when I ask whether Bill S-2 might conflict with Bill C-42 with regard to the classification of firearms.

That is what concerns me the most. This would not be the case if we had a reasonable and sensible government that was acting in the interest of public safety. However, this government is easily swayed by lobbying efforts. Earlier, my colleague, the public safety critic, asked the Minister of Public Safety whether there was deal between the government and the firearms lobby that would explain why the firearms lobby did not attend the committee meetings on Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that this bill has been around a long time. That is strange because we were supposed to debate it on October 23. I was studying this bill when the events occurred on Parliament Hill. The Conservatives are claiming that this bill enhances public safety. The minister says that it is extraordinary. That is ironic because if Bill C-42 is so good for public safety, then it would have been extraordinary if the government had announced, the day after the shooting, that as a good and responsible government, it was letting us debate it and pass it right away.

However, the Conservatives knew very well that this bill had some serious flaws. They used these events to make it more accessible to Canadians, knowing that it could be worrisome for them. Furthermore, since the Conservatives only work based on polls, they withdrew the bill and then brought it back one month later, only to shut down debate after the minister, our critic and the critic from the third party had a chance to speak.

Today, on April 1—this is no April Fool's joke—the Conservatives have brought this bill back and they have the gall to tell us that it has been languishing for six months. That is not our fault. They are the ones who let it languish. There is no real urgency.

This bill has a number of worrisome elements. I know it works to their advantage so it is hard for them to let go of it. They must have been disappointed when the registry was abolished because it was no longer profitable. However, now they have this, so they can continue and say that the member for Gatineau is against hunters. That is not true. I am sick of hearing such nonsense.

Can we be adults here and simply ensure that the right guns are in the hands of the right people? As justice critic for the official opposition I never claimed that the firearms registry would have prevented the crime at the École Polytechnique.

That is not even what police forces came to tell us. All they said was that it helped them during investigations. It gave them a sense of security if they had information—if not some assurance—that firearms might be located somewhere. They acted differently as a result.

With all of that information, we should be able to implement measures that are good for public safety, not for Conservative party funding.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Members of the committee will know about that.

Your answer is pretty clear to me legally, but aren't you afraid it might create problems in the court, because they might not read your answer before they start arguing and trying...?

That's also my problem with all of those bills, because we are stepping inside certain venues sometimes that are so similar that it will start creating all types of problems for that very important type of justice, which is criminal law.

Therefore, I wonder if Bill C-587 should be set aside on that aspect, if you're absolutely and unequivocally sure, without question, that it will be seen as clearly as you just explained it.

[John Giokas]

—but you would not need to enter a conviction.

Generally crown counsel prove the murder and the sexual assault or the kidnapping, but not both. However, in a case such as that of Luka Magnotta, the actual murder contained enough evidence of the elements, so it wouldn't have been hard to prove all three and to get convictions for all three. That is not normally what prosecutors do.

My long answer to your short question is yes, there is some overlap, but the distinguishing characteristic of Bill C-587 is that it requires three convictions, not one.

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

Thank you for the question.

We have studied it. Let me just say at the outset that, as you know, the murder sentencing provisions have become a bit complicated over the years, and for about 10 years there have been calls for another review of the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code in order to look at exactly these issues. That hasn't been done, but we are aware of them.

Bill C-53 and Bill C-587 do criminalize the same conduct. Under Bill C-53, people who engage in the conduct that is referred to in Bill C-587 could be caught in two ways. The first way would be under the mandatory aspect of Bill C-53. If somebody commits a sexual assault and/or a kidnapping—let's just say they commit a sexual assault and a kidnapping and a murder in the same criminal transaction—and the murder were planned and deliberate, they would be subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility.

If “planned and deliberate” could not be proved, the person would nonetheless be subject to a life sentence of imprisonment without parole eligibility on a discretionary basis, based on the same test that is used in the Criminal Code with regard to second degree murderers and multiple murderers, which is the same test that Bill C-587 proposes.

If they were not subject to a discretionary life sentence of imprisonment, they could still be subject to the measures that Bill C-587 proposes if there were three convictions entered. That's one of the differences between what Bill C-587 does and what Bill C-53 does.

Under Bill C-53, we follow the standard Criminal Code procedure, which is that in this type of situation the only conviction that needs to be entered is for the murder, and then the elements—in this case the sexual assault and kidnapping—would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Actually, I have a general question for Mr. Giokas.

My only preoccupation with regard to Bill C-587 is whether anybody from your services has reviewed the impact that Bill C-53 could have on part of Bill C-587. Is there any possibility of conflict between the “life means life” and this kind of facultatif power to the court to push the libération conditionnelle for up to 40 years.

I am just wondering, because some crimes mentioned in Bill C-587 could be seen in Bill C-53. I just want your thoughts on this, because I'm kind of afraid that the courts might have a problem at some point in time when facing a conflict between two conflicting dispositions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 69 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24, 2014, we're dealing with Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility). We are dealing with clause-by-clause today.

We are joined by John Giokas from the Department of Justice, in case there are any questions.

John, thank you for coming.

We are going to do clause by clause, but just before we get going, the bells will soon start ringing, and if we have some time after this is done, I have some things to discuss about what we will next Wednesday and for the rest of today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, will be postponed.

(On clause 2)

Madam Boivin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

The other thing I wanted to let you know is that we have four meetings in this section before there's another constituency week. The mover of the motion that we postpone Bill C-587, increasing parole ineligibility, has come back to me and asked that we do clause-by-clause on it, which is fair. We were about to do it but he asked to look at the bill, and he wants it done now. I have scheduled next Monday to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-587, the parole ineligibility act.

Next Wednesday after that I think we should have a subcommittee on agenda. I can't get the minister here. I thought I could get the minister here to start Bill C-35, Quanto’s law, but I can't get him here because he's not available that day. What I thought we would do is get together as a subcommittee, figure out the schedule for the last eight weeks, and I'll do my best to find out when the minister is available for mains and for Quanto’s Law, and all that. That is the schedule unless you have any questions.

We're dealing with this today. We're dealing with it on Wednesday with more witnesses, then clause-by-clause on Bill C-587, and then a subcommittee on agenda in these two weeks. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your patience on that.

Our witnesses today for the first hour are from the Office of the Correctional Investigator. Mr. Sapers is the correctional investigator and Mr. Zinger is the executive director and general counsel. The floor is yours for 10 minutes or longer, if you need it.

The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Just for the committee's information regarding this bill, Bill C-587, we have until May 1 to report it back, so we do actually have lots of time. Based on the discussion, I'd take a motion to defer the clause-by-clause until future notice.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You were also prudent in stating—and this might be a case that some legal scholars will make with us—the fact that when a new case of that nature would proceed in front of the court it's quite possible that in view of Bill C-587 being in effect, the crown and the defence could have some type of deal that will make it so that the person would end up pleading guilty to one of the three offences so as to avoid the impact of this bill. I think you did mention that fact, so that could also show how the impact of the bill would be close to zero.

Mr. Goguen was talking about the fact that the whole concept of Bill C-587 is built on the discretion of the court and for once everybody on this committee agrees that it's a good thing. That's not the problem with the bill in my opinion, but he said something about longer sentences with the bill, but it's not a longer sentence because the sentence is life. Am I correct? It's life. It's just the possibility of parole and when it will happen that will change.

When somebody leaves the incarceration system, Ms. Brisebois, after successfully going through the Parole Board and they are lifers, is it the end of their attachment to the system or are they still lifers? Am I correct?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

To take that one step further, if inmates are brought to one of your institutions and are convicted of first-degree murder but don't have any additional convictions—that is, the ones related to Bill C-587, sexual assault, etc.—they would not be compelled at all to look at any of those programs because they were never convicted. Is that correct?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

To Commissioner Head, I know it's hard for your organization to be able to foresee the consequences of Bill C-587, but you did do the analysis. I noticed in your remarks to the committee that you talked about some of those programs that are offered, and the timing.

Let's take the scenario that it would be 40 years before somebody would.... Would you take some special measures with that person inside, because I've heard from security guards that they are a bit afraid? They're often the ones we forget about with all the legislation. For somebody who has absolutely or close to no hope of making it out at some point in time, are you thinking of certain measures on that impact?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The sponsor, when he was testifying, was talking at length about how the rationale of his bill is to try to avoid, for families, for victims, the fact of going in front of the Parole Board.

Maybe you can enlighten us. I'm still without any statistics, any information on how many cases would be really affected by that type of bill. For families, is it what they're voicing to your board? Just give us a sense of what's happening over there on such cases, not every case, but more the ones that are touched by Bill C-587.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

No one contacted you to discuss what was going on in reality. No one contacted the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada to discuss Bill C-587.