Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses—including Maryam, who's just left for her class—for powerful testimony and for turning the pain and personal loss that you've experienced into trying to solve some of the problems of today and hopefully improving the situation here in Canada.
I want to ask Dr. Islam a question.
First, Dr. Islam, thank you for your powerful testimony. You've suffered personal loss and we appreciate your perspective on this.
I noted in an article I read that cited you that you don't use the name of the perpetrator who took the lives of your family members. Likewise, with the Quebec City mosque shootings, where six individuals were killed, you said that you wouldn't use the perpetrator's name. I want to ask you a question about that.
The law had been changed previously so that in cases in Canada—fortunately rare cases—of mass murder or multiple murder, for individuals who perpetrate these heinous crimes, there would not be a sentencing discount, so to speak, for the fact that someone took more than one life. They would get consecutive life sentences.
Previous to the change in law, if someone—we heard recently of the story of Paul Bernardo—took multiple lives, they could only get one period of parole ineligibility, which is 25 years. Subsequent to the change that was brought in, an individual, like the individual who shot three RCMP officers in Moncton, could receive consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. That person received a 75-year sentence instead of a 25-year sentence.
We heard from victims' families. The widow of one of the victims of one of these crimes said that while this doesn't bring back her loved one, she does take solace in that her daughter will not have to attend parole hearings every two years to try to keep this individual behind bars.
As you are probably well aware, a few years ago the Supreme Court of Canada struck down this law on consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. There was some strong commentary afterwards. I know that the former president of the Islamic cultural centre, where the shooting took place, expressed disappointment with the court's decision, saying, “In our view, this decision fails to take into due consideration the atrocity and the scourge of the multiple murders which are multiplying in North America, as well as the hateful, Islamophobic and racist aspect of this crime.” He also said, “Our deep concern is about the orphans that will see the murdering person in the roads of Quebec City 25 years after this tragedy.”
Do you feel that we as a Parliament or the government should take some strides to respond to this court decision?