Madam Speaker, as the seconder of the bill, I rise to speak in strong support of Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, introduced by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
I want to thank the member for his leadership in bringing the bill forward. It is legislation that would help spare the families of murder victims from being retraumatized with frequent parole hearings brought by some of the worst and most sadistic murderers in our correctional system.
I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who has been a tireless and consistent champion for the rights of victims and has championed the bill in previous Parliaments. In fact, I recall speaking to the bill in a previous iteration in 2019.
The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to give judges the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period for first-degree murderers who sexually assault or kidnap their victim in the course of the same criminal event or series of events. As it presently stands in the Criminal Code, all first-degree murderers are eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. All the bill would do is provide that, in the case of the worst of the worst offenders, a judge would have the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period from anywhere from 25 years all the way up to 40 years. I will make a few observations.
First, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford noted, in the Criminal Code, the automatic sentence for murder is life. That reflects the gravity of the offence and the fact that murder is the worst, the most serious, offence in the Criminal Code. I would submit that it follows that a life sentence ought to mean something when considering the length of time a convicted first-degree murderer who rapes and kidnaps their victim should spend behind bars before they have the privilege of applying for parole.
Second, I would note that while murder is horrific and evil, not all murderers are equal, yet the Criminal Code treats them equally in the case of first-degree murderer, insofar as they are eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. I certainly agree that anyone convicted of first-degree murder should not be able to apply any earlier than 25 years. Frankly, however, there are some murderers who are so vile, so sadistic, so evil and so irredeemable that they really fall into their own separate category. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford listed some of those murderers with whom, unfortunately, Canadians are familiar.
For those types of sadistic murderers, there is really only one thing that can be done, which is to separate them from society for the rest of their life. That is precisely what the Parole Board has done in cases of murderers who abduct, rape, torture, brutalize and murder their victims. Those murderers are almost never provided with parole. In fact the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asked the Library of Parliament to undertake research to determine how often murderers who fit into that category receive parole. The Library of Parliament could not find one case where a murderer in that category was granted full parole, and it found very few cases where temporary absences or day parole was granted.
Simply put, our correctional system has deemed murderers who fall into this category, who rape and brutalize their victims in the course of murdering them, to not be releasable. I would submit, therefore, that this underscores the reasonableness of the bill.
While such murderers are not releasable, they can apply for parole after 25 years. In fact, they can apply in year 23. When their application is turned down, as it almost certainly will be, they can apply again and again, year after year. Depending on the age of the offender, the murderer, that could mean dozens of parole applications and parole hearings over the course of the lifetime of the murderer. In the process, the families of victims are punished by the process. They are victimized again and again, retraumatized by having to go through parole hearings in which the application has virtually no chance of success.
Having regard for that, I ask if it is really that unreasonable to give a judge the discretion, in the case of the worst of the worst, to determine that a murderer ought not to be eligible for parole at 25 years, or for a longer period of time, anywhere up to 40 years. It could be 30 years. It could be 35 years. It would be entirely at the discretion of the trial judge having regard for the specific facts, the specific circumstances and the specific offender. I would say that is common sense. That is just. It does right for the families of victims who were murdered.
Speaking of frequent parole hearings for convicted murderers, that is why I offered Brian's bill in honour of the late Brian Ilesic, who was brutally murdered along with Michelle Shegelski and Eddie Rejano at the University of Alberta's Hub Mall. Matthew Schuman survived but lives with injuries that are life-altering. Brian's bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that murderers who apply for parole and are turned down cannot apply again and again. Their parole would only be considered at the time of the statutory review that occurs every five years rather than every year.
I am grateful to the member for Edmonton Griesbach for introducing Brian's bill in this Parliament, Bill C-243. It is at the second reading stage. I hope it passes. It is common-sense legislation, just as this is common-sense legislation.
This legislation would go a long way toward sparing the families of victims from frequent parole hearings. It would stop convicted murderers from being able to, in many instances, take advantage of hearings to deliberately try to cause trauma to the families of victims, because they sadistically enjoy revictimizing and continuing to revictimize the families of their victims. It would also, of course, address the abuse of the process and all the costs associated with these hearings in respect of murderers who, frankly, have no hope because they are not releasable.
I was pleased to learn, based on the speech from the member for Bourassa, that the government supports the intent of the bill, and therefore, it sounds like the government will be supporting the bill at the second reading stage to go to committee. The member for Bourassa cited three amendments—