House of Commons Hansard #222 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was youth.

Topics

Digital Privacy ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Digital Privacy ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Digital Privacy ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Digital Privacy ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Digital Privacy ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #413

Digital Privacy ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Financial Code of ConductBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #414

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

HealthCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Health.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #415

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

moved that Bill C-587 be concurred in.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Don Valley East for seconding my bill.

My private member's bill, Bill C-587, is a continuation of Bill C-478 that was previously introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, which was introduced in the first session of the 41st Parliament.

Although the hon. member's bill was read twice in the House and referred to a committee, it was withdrawn after he was appointed to the role of parliamentary secretary, a position that precludes him from carrying a private member's bill forward.

The House voted to send my private member's bill, Bill C-587, to the justice committee, and I wish to thank the justice committee and the witnesses called for their insightful and informative discussion on my bill.

Two of the witnesses, Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley, represent more than themselves, their families and loved ones who were taken from them. They represent the community of Canadians who span our nation, a community of Canadians whose lives have been changed forever by violent offenders.

Despite the tragic losses experienced by Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley, they have found the strength and courage to advocate on behalf of those whose lives were stolen away, and also the thousands of Canadians who face the challenges of moving on with their lives after experiencing trauma that the majority of Canadians thankfully have never experienced.

As members of Parliament, I believe it is our duty to demonstrate solidarity with this community of Canadians and support their advocacy with our own work in legislating toward a society that values victims' rights.

As members of Parliament, it is our duty to identify and address points of our legal regime that require improvement. Specifically to this bill, I believe we must not only examine, but reform the state of existing laws governing the removal from society and long-term incarceration of violent offenders who have abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered victims.

This bill is modelled on Bill C-48, which was passed in 2011, and allows judges to set consecutive rather than concurrent periods of parole ineligibility in sentencing those convicted of multiple murders. This bill would empower judges and juries to give stronger sentences.

In the same way that Bill C-48 now allows judges to acknowledge additional degrees of blameworthiness and offence when a conviction of multiple murders has been established, this bill seeks to provide judges the ability to extend the period of parole ineligibility to likewise acknowledge accompanying offences of abduction and sexual assault. All parties worked together and passed Bill C-48, and it is my hope that this bill will likewise benefit from the input and support from all sides of the House.

As members are likely aware, section 745 of the Criminal Code provides for life imprisonment for convicted murderers subject to varying periods during which they are ineligible for parole: for first degree murder, the minimum ineligibility period is 25 years; for second degree murder, it varies from 10 to 25 years.

While all convicted murderers are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murders are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with first degree murder that justifies the current mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While some may believe that the current thresholds for parole represent an appropriate period of incarceration for a violent offender who abducted, raped then murdered their victim, many Canadians consider this to be insufficient in instances of extreme violence and murder.

As we all know, perhaps none more so than those who have lost loved ones, the investigation and prosecution of cases involving multiple offences such as abduction, sexual assault and murder combined can take many years. The time that it takes to arrive at a conviction and then sentencing for a violent offender is excruciating for survivors, family and loved ones. Regardless, as painful as it is, it is essential to the sound carriage of justice.

This bill seeks to provide greater certainty, and therein relief, for the families and loved ones in that, once sentencing is completed, the sentencing judge could be given the judicial discretion to waive parole eligibility for a period of 25 to 40 years, again, at the discretion of the judge.

If parole is to be considered for violent offenders who abduct, sexually assault, then murder their victims, it should not occur before the offender has served at least 25 years. The toll that parole hearings take on family members and loved ones of victims is excruciating as they await the hearing date when the violent offender who took their loved ones will present his or her case. Why should the offender be awarded parole while family members and loved ones have to mobilize to keep the violent offender behind bars? This amounts to a system whereby Canadians who have already suffered tragic loss and endured years of judicial proceedings are subjected to a system that requires their continued mobilization to help keep violent offenders behind bars. This bill would add three new provisions to the Criminal Code, mandating a 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period for anyone convicted of an offence under each of the following offence categories in respect of one victim: a kidnapping or abduction offence, sections 279 to 283; a sexual offence, sections 151 to 153.1 and sections 271 to 273; and murder.

The bill would also provide a judge the discretionary prerogative to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years based on the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard. This bill seeks to provide the sentencing judge the discretion to increase the period of parole ineligibility and, therefore, uphold the principle of judicial discretion, which provides a safeguard of charter rights. I believe that this is an important strength of the bill. Expanding the discretionary prerogatives of judges with a broader range of judicial discretion rather than imposing automatic periods beyond 25 years of ineligibility upholds charter provisions.

Second reading debate raised questions about how the amendments proposed by this bill would interact with the Rome Statute. It is important to note that article 5 of the Rome Statute establishes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the following offences: crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Therefore, the Rome Statute does not directly apply to Bill C-587 for the following two reasons: first, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, which is under the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, whereas the Rome Statute only applies to the proceedings of the International Criminal Court; and second, the four offences in article 5 of the Rome Statute are not included this bill.

In conclusion, I would ask that members of the House support Bill C-587, as requested by the victims who plead for justice for the loved ones they have lost as a result of brutal, violent, and heinous murder.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a quick question for my colleague. I still do not have the answer, even after seriously studying the bill at committee.

The government had presented or filed at first reading Bill C-53, which is the life means life bill. Now we have this bill, with the possibility of appealing to the public security minister after 35 years. For the same type of infractions or crimes, we have Bill C-587, which seems to create a type of situation where we are not too sure what prosecutors would be able to do. There might be the possibility of a mix-up in front of the courts, which are already mixed up because of the crime and punishment agenda put forth by the government.

I know the hon. member suspended the study of his bill at some point in time at committee. I am curious as to why he suspended it and why he decided to continue even though Bill C-53 is still somewhere inside this Parliament.