Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-235, introduced by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
This bill addresses an issue that strikes at the very heart of our justice system—the way that our country punishes the most severe, devastating crimes resulting not only in death or serious injury, but also in lasting trauma for family members, survivors and society at large.
The bill before us proposes to allow the courts to impose a parole ineligibility period lasting up to 40 years when the same victim, during the same sequence of events, is murdered, kidnapped or forcibly confined, when a sexual offence is also involved. These crimes of extreme violence destroy lives, families and communities. Society justifiably feels a deep need for justice and protection in response to them.
Before taking our legal analysis any further, I want to acknowledge the immense pain of the victims and family members who have lived through such tragedies. I think that my colleague across the way did a good job, and I thank him for the eloquent way that he rekindled a debate on this subject.
When a family has to relive their trauma at every parole hearing, it is not only difficult, it is inhumane. This is not a theoretical debate. It is about shattered lives, parents and children living with impossible grief, survivors trying to rebuild their lives after an unthinkable incident.
This bill aims to address that suffering. It is intended to offer a form of stability and some degree of healing by reducing the frequency of hearings that reopen the wounds that might still be raw. This intention is profoundly just and deserves to be heard. It deserves serious discussion. We must respond with empathy, but also with rigour.
However, in a country governed by the rule of law, we must balance two imperatives. The first is the moral imperative to protect victims. The second is the legal imperative to respect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am saying that emotion is important, but emotion alone cannot be the basis for a criminal sentence. Passing a law based solely on emotion without a solid legal framework runs the very real risk of that law eventually being struck down, unfortunately. If we pass a law that is later struck down, we would be disappointing victims a second time, as I just said.
It is not through weak laws that we protect families. We do so through robust, enforceable and constitutional laws. The current system is strict but well defined. Canada already has a system that allows for adjustments in terms of ineligibility for parole for murders. The system automatically calls for 25 years of imprisonment for first-degree murder and between 10 and 25 years of imprisonment for second-degree murder. Section 743.6 of the Criminal Code also includes mechanisms for delaying access to parole in certain serious cases.
This system is based on a fundamental principle that has been recognized by the Supreme Court for decades: individualization in sentencing. Sentences must take into account not only the act committed, but also the degree of responsibility of the convicted person, their history and, yes, their rehabilitation potential. This is not an ideological position. It is a constitutional principle.
The Bissonnette decision serves as an essential reminder. Bill C-235 cannot be studied without considering the Bissonnette decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court struck down consecutive ineligibility periods lasting 50, 75 or 100 years. Why were they struck down? They were struck down because a sentence that allows no real prospect of release, even in theory, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of section 12 of the charter. The court did not say that the crimes were not atrocious or that the sentences should not be long. It said that the state can never completely rule out the possibility of reintegration into society, even for offenders guilty of the most heinous crimes. The decision is not political; it is a constitutional requirement.
A 40-year ineligibility period could be considered extreme in some cases, particularly if it were imposed on very young individuals or in specific circumstances. The legal risk is therefore not theoretical, but rather real, serious and predictable. Our responsibility here in the House is to strengthen the bill so that it cannot be successfully challenged. We are not rejecting Bill C-235, on the contrary. We recognize the legitimate intention behind the member's bill. However, for it to become a lasting, effective piece of legislation, respectful of fundamental principles, it needs to be improved. We are therefore proposing three amendments.
The first amendment, which is essential, is about a clear and consistent right of appeal. When imposing an exceptionally severe sentence, there must be a national review mechanism to harmonize the case law. The second amendment is about a requirement to provide grounds for any inadmissibility exceeding 25 years. An exceptional sentence must be accompanied by equally exceptional grounds. This will reinforce the legitimacy of the decision in the eyes of the public and will protect the law from challenges. The third amendment specifies the law can only be applied prospectively. This is essential to avoid the risk of violating section 11 of the charter, which prohibits increasing a sentence retroactively. These amendments in no way diminish the scope of my colleague's bill. On the contrary, they make it stronger, more consistent, more sustainable and more useful for families and survivors.
We want a strong, compassionate and constitutional justice system. Our goal is not just to impose harsh penalties, but to impose harsh penalties that will stand the test of time and hold up in courts in the future. Victims have already endured the unspeakable. They do not deserve to have a court decision imposed on them a few years later if it will have the effect of striking down the law they had pinned their hopes on. We must therefore offer them real, not symbolic, protection; justice that is firm but legally sound; a law that respects the Constitution but does not falter in the face of challenges.
In conclusion, Bill C‑235 is very important. It is guided by a just and compassionate intention to better protect victims of the most serious crimes. However, in order to become a truly effective law, it must be modified by means of the three amendments I have presented. It must reflect our legitimate outrage, but also our deep respect for the rule of law. It is in this spirit that we are participating in this debate, and it is in this spirit that we invite all members of Parliament to improve this text so that it becomes a fair, sustainable, balanced and strong law, but above all, a compassionate one.