I understand the problem that has been raised by the Liberals very well and I see it the same way. I think we should all see it the same way.
I considered it for at least a good half-hour. It isn't easy to be sure that the bill achieves its goal. Its goal is clear. If there are two murders and the judge has a choice between imposing a 25-year sentence and imposing a 50-year sentence, there is a risk that judges who would like to be able to impose a 35-year or even a 40-year sentence will opt for 25 years rather than 50 years. And that is what the law does now: it offers a choice between a 25-year sentence and a 50-year sentence.
That is also true when we see that a majority of multiple murders are crimes of passion. They are family situations for which there are certainly deep psychological explanations that do not amount to the degree of mental illness that is required in order to absolve the person of responsibility.
We have had two cases of this type in Quebec in the last year. There was the one of a surgeon married to a woman doctor, who apparently made a very good couple. The surgeon, in particular, was very highly regarded in the community. She decided to leave. When she left, he killed the two children. We can clearly see that this was an extreme reaction in passion, or something pathological, even if it is not excusable. In my opinion, a judge would consider imposing a sentence of 25 years to 50 years, and will opt for something closer to 25 years, but might give a little more.
There was also the case of a desperate couple in Lac-Saint-Jean, I think. The parents had tried to get help, from friends, from family, but ultimately they were desperate, probably wrongly, because I think the social security system could have helped them more. In any event, they decided together to kill the entire family. So they amassed enough sedatives for the whole family. They all took them, they went to sleep, and three of them never woke up. The mother woke up in spite of everything. There again, those are crimes of passion. They aren't outlaws. But she stands accused of three murders.
There are generally a lot of degrees in the severity of crimes of passion. I am absolutely convinced that in these cases, judges would probably impose a sentence of only 25 years. But there are degrees between those extreme cases and the case of outlaws like Mom Boucher.
Mom Boucher is lucky because when the person he asked to kill two prison guards went to kill the second, his firearm jammed. So Mom Boucher was sentenced for only one murder. In any event, that doesn't mean that if he was eligible for parole in 25 years he would get it.
When the Liberals explained that, I didn't understand, but now I understand perfectly, like them, that rather than giving judges a choice between imposing a 25-year sentence and imposing a 50-year sentence, let's give them the option of imposing a sentence higher than 25 years, that is, of adding five years or 10 or 15 or even 25 years to the initial 25-year sentence.
I am saying that it takes time, when we read the amendments, to make sure they in fact achieve their objective. It took me a half-hour, but I'm satisfied. I think they do achieve the objective. That is why I am going to vote in favour of this amendment.