Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-243, Brian's bill, in honour of the memory of the late Brian Ilesic.
On June 12, 2012, Brian, with his colleagues Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano and Matthew Schuman, were working as armoured guards at the University of Alberta's Hub Mall servicing ATM machines. They were, unfortunately, with another co-worker, who, in an act of pure evil, opened fire on them, shooting Brian, Michelle and Eddie multiple times, point-blank in the back of the head as he ran off with $360,000 in cash.
Brian, Michelle and Eddie did not survive. Matthew miraculously did survive, but he has sustained life-altering injuries. His life will never be the same.
That triple murderer, who attempted to murder a fourth victim, Matthew, was the first murderer to be sentenced under a law passed by the Harper government, which simply gave judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods for persons convicted of multiple murders to take into account the life of each victim and to, frankly, see that the worst of the worst murderers never see the light of day.
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice Rooke sentenced this triple murderer to 40 years behind bars for taking the lives of three people and attempting to murder a fourth. For Mike and Dianne Ilesic, Brian's parents, who were constituents of mine when I represented Northwest Edmonton and whom I have had the opportunity to get to know over the years, told me that the only sense of justice and comfort they felt after their son had been brutally murdered was believing that they would never have to sit through a parole hearing in their lifetime to face Brian's murderer. That sense of justice, that sense of comfort, was shattered in May 2022 when the Supreme Court issued the Bissonnette decision, which struck down that very just and very reasonable law.
As a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision, some of Canada's most notorious and worst murderers have seen their sentences significantly slashed. For Mike and Dianne, it meant that, as of 2022, instead of Brian's murderer being eligible for parole in 30 long years, he could suddenly be eligible for parole in only 15 years, and today, in only 12 years.
Mike and Dianne came to me, as their member of Parliament, and asked what could be done. I said to them that there was a very simple path forward, and that would be for the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court's unjust decision. However, seeing that the Liberal government is not prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause, I suggested that, at the very least, an amendment be made to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that convicted murders would not be able to apply for parole on a frequent basis, year after year, after they have served the mandatory incarceration period of 25 years for first-degree murder, and between 10 to 25 years for second-degree murder. Hence, there is Brian's law.
I championed this in the last Parliament along with Senator Boisvenu, who, like Mike and Dianne, knows what it feels like to live with having a child murdered. I want to thank Senator Denise Batters and my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach for bringing forward this bill in this Parliament.
This bill would provide that someone who is a convicted murderer has their parole considered, but only at the time of the automatic review provided for in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which occurs approximately every five years. Murder is the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. It comes with an automatic life sentence, and for good reason.
Let us face reality. If someone is convicted of first-degree murder, for example, and they serve the mandatory incarceration period of 25 years, at year 25, their parole will be considered. If, at that time, the Parole Board determines that the murderer is not releasable, as is often the case, what are the chances that they would be releasable in year 26 or year 27? They are next to nil, yet as it stands, that murderer would be able to apply year after year.
How does that make sense? How is that just? How is that fair? How is it just to put the families and friends of murder victims through frequent parole hearings, year after year? It revictimizes them, retraumatizes them and forces them to prepare victim impact statements when the ink has barely dried from the previous victim impact statement, and to what end? For what purpose? It is for a parole application that is almost certainly going to be rejected because, after all, we are talking about convicted murderers. We are talking about people who have been given an automatic life sentence.
All this bill says is that if someone has been convicted of murder, they would get a kick at the can every five years. Parliament has already determined that to be the appropriate time frame for the parole status of a convicted murderer to be reviewed. It is already in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
In closing, let me say that this bill would strike the right balance between regard for the very serious gravity of the offence of murder and the public interest. It takes into account the rights and real vulnerabilities of the families and friends of victims who have to go through frequent parole hearings. It would spare the taxpayer from having to foot the bill for frequent, frivolous and hopeless parole applications. It would save scarce resources at the Correctional Service. It would also respect the charter rights of murderers, which we kept being reminded of by the parliamentary secretary and the Bloc member, because at the end of the day, their parole and incarceration status would continue to be reviewed on the fairly frequent basis of roughly every five years.
Brian's bill is straightforward, it is targeted and it is common sense. If the government has any sense of justice and any regard for the rights of victims, it will vote for it.