Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her efforts in tackling these criminal justice issues that are of concern to us and indeed to all Canadians. My comments will be directed to those provisions in this bill aimed at changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The proposals would alter section 120 of that act, which in large part sets out the current sentence calculation scheme. Specifically, the proposed amendments relating to section 120 would provide two things. First, that offenders sentenced for first or second degree murder would serve the full parole ineligibility period on that sentence, which is a maximum of 25 years, plus one-third or a maximum of seven years of a sentence, whichever is less, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.
For an offender already serving a sentence when the sentence for murder is imposed, he or she would serve one-third or seven years of that sentence, again whichever is less.
The second point is that offenders would serve consecutively all the full parole ineligibility periods for sentences for multiple first or second degree murder convictions not arising of the same event or series of events.
The thrust of the hon. member's proposals is to deal more stringently with repeat offenders, especially those convicted of first or second degree murder.
Who could not agree with the notion that a new sentence for first or second degree murder and for offences arising out of the same event or series of events committed by an offender, including an offender who is already under sentence, should result in a clear, meaningful consequence? The government agrees with the intent of these proposals. That is why we have already moved to provide an effective and balanced remedy to this problem.
Last January Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes, came into force. The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were devout with the intent of ensuring that offenders who get new sentences feel the effect of those sentences.
It is important at this point to outline the main elements of the reforms which will help restore confidence in the sentence calculation process.
In the case of a consecutive sentence, the offender will have to serve the parole ineligibility portion of the new sentence before becoming eligible again for parole. This means a third of the new sentence, or one-half of the sentence in cases where the court has made an order that this would have to be served. However, except in cases of murder, an offender's parole eligibility date cannot be later than 15 years from the date the last sentence was imposed.
In addition, the sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 include the principle of adding parole ineligibility periods, where a lifer receives an additional definite sentence.
For example, a lifer with 10 years of parole ineligibility who receives an additional 15 year sentence will have five years of ineligibility added on, for a total of 15 years.
As I said earlier, the exception to this 15 year rule are sentences imposed as a result of a first or second degree murder conviction. In such cases, the maximum parole ineligibility period is 25 years.
The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were developed on the basis of extensive consultations with a broad range of groups and individuals. The reforms in Bill C-45 were developed after a long process of consultation and scrutiny by the standing committee during both the last and the current Parliaments. The standing committee heard from over 60 witnesses representing 32 different organizations. During its clause-by-clause review, the committee debated the sentence calculation reforms set out in Bill C-45, and endorsed them in their entirety.
The amendments in Bill C-45 strike a fair and reasonable balance between punishment, respect for the court-imposed sentence, and effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.
Striking such a crucial balance is achieved through a combination of basic automatic features, such as the automatic return to custody of a parolee who receives a new sentence, and discretionary measures that allow individual circumstances to be taken into consideration so that once the punitive portion of the sentence has been served, the offender is not kept in custody beyond the point when he or she can be safely released under community supervision. This is what the current sentence calculation scheme is designed to do.
While I believe that the hon. member's proposals are well-intentioned, I am also concerned that they fall short of the impact intended by Bill C-45. The amendments proposed by the hon. member would maximize punishment, and no one disagrees with this objective. But they would also reduce the discretion of the courts and the Parole Board and make the system more arbitrary and no more effective in terms of public safety.
The proposals could introduce new anomalous situations that could lead to serious Charter challenges. For example, the proposals would have a retroactive effect on concurrent sentences an offender is serving when convicted of murder. For all intents and purposes, sentences that were initially concurrent would become consecutive because the ineligibility period on each and every sentence would be added.
Not only would this rule undermine the role of the sentencing court and render sentence calculation uncertain and difficult to administer, but its impact on the amount of time to be served, and particularly its retroactive application, would certainly give rise to serious charter challenges.
Another difficulty posed by this bill is the rule regarding the addition of all of the full parole ineligibility periods sentences for additional first or second degree murder convictions not arising out of the same event or series of events.
Not only would this further reduce the scope of the National Parole Board's discretion, but it would also mean that offenders who could safely be released would remain in costly custody well beyond the point that is necessary or in society's interest, and this at great public expense.
Lengthy incarceration beyond the point that is necessary for public safety is not the answer. We cannot afford to lose sight of the other important objectives of the C-45 reforms, particularly with respect to the courts' and the National Parole Board's discretion and the offender's rehabilitation and safe reintegration into society.
This governement supports the principle that repeat criminal behavior should be dealt with more stringently, and that is precisely why the mandatory 25 year parole ineligibility period for additional murder conviction is provided for in the Criminal Code.
I would also point out to the members of this House that being eligible for parole does not mean that a lifer will automatically be released. It is up to the National Parole Board to grant parole only after careful consideration of all relevant information, including the level of risk to the community.
The reforms brought about by Bill C-45, which was passed in January of this year, provide a comprehensive response that is proportionate to the sentence handed down by the court in any individual case.
The government has brought in a tough, fair, and balanced sentence calculation scheme that makes sure offenders feel the effect of their repeat offences, respects the sentences imposed by the courts and limits but still allows for discretionary conditional release when safe to do so in the judgement of the National Parole Board.
I submit that the issue raised by the hon. member is a worthy one. The sentence calculation reforms recently introduced by the government address this and other concerns of Canadians in the most effective and efficient manner, particularly with respect to public safety.