moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-251, in the title, be amended by restoring the title thereof as follows:
“An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences)”
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-251, in Clause 1, be amended by restoring Clause 1 thereof as follows:
“1. Section 271 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(2) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1).”
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-251, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2 thereof as follows:
“2. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) The portion of a sentence of imprisonment for life that a person who has been convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder must serve before the person may be released on full parole is, subject to subsection (2.2), that provided for in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and, in addition, where the person is under another sentence of imprisonment in respect of another offence arising out of the same event or series of events or under any other sentence at the time the sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on the person, the lesser of one third of any other sentence of imprisonment and seven years.
(2.2) Where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life for first degree murder or second degree murder after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of another first degree murder or second degree murder not arising out of the same event or series of events, the portion of the sentence that the person must serve before the person may be released on full parole is that provided for in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and shall be added to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve under that section in respect of the other conviction for first degree murder or second degree murder.”
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to restore a private member's bill that seeks consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.
For months and years I have been working with colleagues from all parties to demonstrate to parliament and to the public at large exactly how our rampant system of concurrent sentencing deprives Canadians of justice.
We know that 90% of Canadians polled by Pollara last year agreed that multiple murderers and multiple rapists should receive consecutive rather than concurrent sentencing. I believe that Canadians support consecutive sentencing because Canadians think that every victim should receive some measure of justice and that every victim should count in the sentencing equation where rape or murder is involved.
It is because of those victims and the many, many families of victims I have met over three years that I have chosen not to accept the dismissal of Bill C-251 by any committee or subcommittee without a final vote in the House of Commons.
I have also been encouraged by the continuous support of so many members who have shown that they care most about the impact of laws on victims and families. They have proven that it is possible for members from all sides of the House to put partisanship aside and work together to achieve a real improvement in our justice system.
I must also thank the many members of my own party who have gone to great lengths to support this initiative in the House and in caucus. Without their efforts this bill would have died long ago.
I have listened carefully to the advice of my colleagues who support the bill but I have also listened just as carefully to colleagues who do not support my bill. I have listened and I have learned that there is indeed a virtual consensus among MPs on one point, that being that the current system of automatic concurrent sentences for murder and virtually automatic concurrent sentencing for rape is wrong and must be changed.
What remains is a debate on the extent of judicial discretion. I have heard colleagues say that they are not against consecutive sentencing but they are against mandatory consecutive sentencing, that they want to let judges decide what sentence should be imposed.
As all members well know, judges have no discretion to impose consecutive sentencing for murder. A concurrent sentence must always apply no matter what the circumstance. So we have no judicial discretion in the courts today on this point. The law is that the second murder victim does not count regardless of what a judge may think.
I believe that the second murder or sexual assault victim should always count. We should not continue to send a message to multiple murderers and rapists that the number of victims does not matter. That is wrong and dangerous.
However, in my estimation, our priority must be to change the current system and its mandatory bulk rate for murder to provide at least for a judge to be able to impose consecutive sentencing for murder, something that they cannot do right now. I have agreed to support an amendment to my bill to provide the judicial discretion sought by my colleagues.
The amendment submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville will provide full judicial discretion as to whether a concurrent or consecutive sentence should apply for murder. This will give a judge the latitude to give the next Paul Bernardo a sentence that denies him parole for 25 years for the first murder and up to 25 years for the second murder.
The alternative is to maintain the current system where multiple murderers face not even the possibility of an incremental sentence for additional murders. The status quo is not acceptable to the majority of Canadians
In terms of sexual assault, even the most prolific multiple rapist of the 1990s received concurrent sentences. These discounts were given because concurrent sentencing has become the norm from which judges are shy to deviate. A second amendment to my bill also submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville proposes to maintain judicial discretion but present consecutive sentencing as the standard.
Under this provision judges must provide oral and written reasons based on a set of criteria as to why they offered concurrent rather than consecutive sentences in a particular case. I believe this is a significant and positive change from the current law and one which will provide more justice for women and children who fall victim to sexual predators in this country.
With these amendments, Bill C-251 boils down to one single question. Do members of this House support the status quo of automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple murderers and virtually automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple sex offenders?
I ask members to end the hopelessness of that injustice and the anguish it causes to the victims and the families of victims. I ask members to look on the amended Bill C-251 as a measured advance toward fairness and proportionality in sentencing with all the safeguards that complete judicial discretion can offer.