Thank you very much for having the BCCLA here.
I listened to the really moving remarks by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap in debate in the House. I actually went and watched the video. It's clear to see the goodwill with which the member has brought this forward and the desire to give comfort and relief to families whose loved ones have been victimized in the truly heinous ways referred to in this bill.
I wish to say to the member, through you, Chair, that I have nothing but respect for his efforts and the perspective that he brings on this issue. I too have known people who have died through homicide, and have some small understanding, although nowhere near a true understanding, of what it would be like to be part of a family like that.
However, I've been asked here today to talk about the proposal contained in the bill from the perspective of what makes appropriate and just sentencing policy and law, based on evidence. It's with that in mind that I come in front of you today to bring some criticism to this proposal.
In Canada, we've spent a lot of time over the last century—and some of it's been referred to by my friend who just spoke—adjusting the penalties in our criminal justice system as the criminal law has become more complex. We've taken into account the multiple different goals of sentencing, specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, reparation, and denunciation, as well as promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders. In general, not one of those is valued more highly by the law than any other.
A key principle that is recognized by Parliament and the courts is that principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility by the offender. It's been recognized as well by courts and Parliament that the best way of achieving that kind of proportionality and of getting that balance right in the long run is through a system that has individualized decision-making, and regard to the personal circumstances of the individual concerned as well as the circumstances of the crime.
As we know, this bill may in some cases increase minimum sentences and will permit an increase in the length of time before parole eligibility may be determined. Murder already has the highest sentence known in the criminal law, and murder committed in conjunction with sexual assault is already treated as first-degree murder and can have that penalty attending to it. The aim here is to make it possible for judges to add 15 years in which there would be no assessment whatsoever for parole.
For us it's difficult to understand what will be added that isn't achieved by the current dangerous offender and long-term offender designations.
By the way, the BCCLA testified before this committee in the nineties in support of both of those designations. Although we had some amendments that we proposed at the time, we did not oppose them in principle. In fact, we supported them in principle.
It has been said that this law is about the families and not about the offenders. Indeed, I can feel intuitively why we would want to spare families from having to go through parole hearings. However, the parole hearing is central to the whole system of punishment and rehabilitation in the country. It is the valve that allows the government to determine whether it has any reason to continue to hold someone.
In 1915, a hundred years ago, the minister of justice at the time, C.J. Doherty, said that the right to imprison someone depends on the necessity of punishing that person to protect society. He said, and I quote, “When the necessity for punishment will have disappeared, the right to imprison will have disappeared also.”
The question here is not so much about the preference of the families, but what the government has the right to do in these kinds of circumstances. Once there is no need to imprison someone because they are deemed to be at a low risk of reoffence and because they have been punished and served their debt to society, we see no reason why they should not be released through a parole hearing.
In the case of someone designated as a dangerous offender, we understand that release date may never come.
Indeed, the crown attorney in the Colonel Russell Williams case said that in that particular instance, the record was so clear they didn't even feel the need to seek a dangerous offender designation, because the parole board would have such a record before it of the danger at which he could put society that he would likely remain in prison for the rest of his life. That assessment by the parole board is key to the justice of our prison system. It's the only way we can determine, in an ongoing way, after that mandatory minimum for murder is served, whether or not it remains just, whether it remains effective, and whether it remains a good idea to continue to hold someone in custody.
My five minutes are up, but I expect there will be some further questions.
