Thank you, Chair.
Throughout the testimony we were struck I think by the idea that in some cases we would like a judge to have the discretion, as the bill indicates, to go up to 50 years—and I'll talk about first-degree murder first—in terms of parole ineligibility, if there were two murders, say.
I was also struck, however, that the judge would have a choice between 25 and 50 in the case of first degree. It was very telling testimony from a seasoned defence lawyer, and I don't think there was any bias in his remark when he said that given the choice between 25 and 50, in most circumstances a judge is going to choose, under the principle of judicial restraint, the 25. I thought the baby would go out with the bathwater. If we wanted to give judges real discretion, the idea would be to give them something between 25 and 50.
I'm mindful, and I know my friends on the other side are going to say this, that many of the other pieces of testimony—the witnesses for victims in particular—said they would like to keep with the 50. I understand that because they would like to see a longer period before eligibility for parole. My point is this. As legislators, I think we have to be mindful of the fact that the victims' desires may not be met by doing what they're asking you to do. In a case where you know that judicial restraint is going to be used, a judge may use the 25-year period instead of the 50-year period.
I have to come back to what I kept telling you was an example in my community about two police officers in 1974 who were killed, murdered in cold blood, premeditated in the most heinous way, and buried in a shallow grave. I grew up with one of the children. He ended up being an NHL hockey player, and he's a great guy. But my gosh, that was horrible for the community. I would think that the judge, having been given the opportunity, might have used the 50 years. Fine, but in many cases of double murders, and we went through it in our briefs, there are crimes of passion, there are drug-related murders, and it doesn't excuse them for sure, but a judge just may use discretion between 25 and 50 in a certain case. I think it achieves what the government wants to do, which is to give, apparently, judicial discretion on further periods of ineligibility. If this amendment doesn't go through, I think the government will lose what it's trying to do, which is to try to maybe get further periods of ineligibility in cases because judges will use judicial restraint. I guess it all comes down to whether you believe judges will use judicial restraint. I think we heard nothing else but that they would.
That's my pitch, I guess, to the government, because I think I know how this is all going to unfold. The problem I might have is with the responses that I anticipate: if you want this bill to be less powerful--and I suspect you'll hear it--you will vote against my amendment because you know that judges will use judicial restraint. So wait for the speeches, but this is actually an amendment that I think the government should consider.
I don't know how to explain the amendment other than to say that it's 10 to 20, and in some cases 10 to 35, and 25 to 50, and anywhere in between. I certainly didn't draft this. I got a lot of help drafting this, from some of the brightest minds in the Library of Parliament, not me, so I'm fairly convinced that this is the way to write this. It is consistent with what the government bill intends to do, and I'm of course very much in support of it.
Thank you. I'm sorry I went on for so long.