Mr. Speaker, the bill addresses a very serious issue. We agree with many aspects of the bill. First, there is the seriousness of murder, of course. It is the most serious crime one can commit, and there are also different degrees.
I am also grateful to my colleague for highlighting the importance of rehabilitation, even though that can be very difficult to imagine. However, with this type of bill, we must always be careful not to overstep the courts' authority. I am neither a legal expert nor a lawyer, of course, and it always bothers me when processes are changed or when lawmakers impose something. I will explain why.
I understand the intent behind the bill, especially when the goal is to protect victims' families. I will start with that, actually. There may be other ways to approach this. It is true that it is heartbreaking when people who have lost a loved one are asked to testify and take part in the process. Most experts say that testimony from family members does not influence the process at all in the vast majority of cases, so is this even necessary? Could we not do without this more often? We could have family members testify only when necessary. There are definitely issues.
Under Bill C‑243, a person whose first parole application is denied would not be able to reapply. That takes away the ability of judges and courts to make a nuanced assessment. That troubles me, and it could even have the opposite effect in some cases. Currently, 32.4% of applications for full parole are granted, or three out of every 10 applications. That means that seven out of 10 are rejected.
When we talk about this topic, we all recall certain notorious criminals, whose names I will not bother to mention here. I will simply describe the circumstances: the Quebec City mosque tragedy, serial killers and so on. Generally, the system seems to be working quite well. Of course, sometimes horrific crimes are committed by repeat offenders, but these are exceptional cases. If there is something we can do to limit that even further, we should.
However, what this bill is saying is that people who have applied once will never be able to apply again. That could have a negative effect. I am concerned that it could influence the Parole Board of Canada's decisions. It is the duty of the board members not to grant parole if they feel that there is even the slightest chance that an individual could pose a danger to the public. That explains the Bloc Québécois's position. We will be voting against the bill for that reason. The decision needs to remain with the Parole Board. If there is a problem, then we need to review the appointments to that board and perhaps its workload as well, so that members have enough time to properly analyze each case.
I am worried about what might happen when board members are on the fence, when they think that a person may be fit to be released back into society but they still have a niggling doubt. They might think that, if they say no, the person will never be able to apply again, and so they might be tempted to release the person, despite that niggling doubt. They might end up taking risks that they are not currently taking. We therefore have to be careful about the unintended consequences that a bill may have.
The bill has very noble intentions. I am not challenging the bill's intentions which, by the way, I support. I think this is just an issue that we have. Our society needs to be better protected, especially victims of crime. However, we have to be careful about the bills we propose. For that reason, I do not believe that this is a good bill.
It could have targeted prolific offenders or repeat offenders, people who committed a crime, were released, returned to society, committed other crimes, were re-incarcerated and released only to commit more crime. That would have brought some nuance to a bill that is otherwise much too broad.
I really appreciated the member's point that human beings are the most able to evolve and change. I thought that was an interesting point, and he is quite right. It is normal for the individual to believe that they are fine and they can rejoin society. It is also normal for parole board members to conclude that, even if the individual thinks they are fine, they might still have a long way to go.
There has also been discussion about the annual review, which is generally required by law. However, a judge may also decide that the individual will not be ready to come back in one year's time. That does happen. The member also referred to the automatic review process after five years. However, the Conservatives have forgotten about day parole. Some individuals may be in prison but allowed to leave during the day and return in the evening. There is actually a very high success rate for this kind of release. I will provide a few statistics at the end of my speech to prove my point. In the case of day parole, there is no such thing as automatic review after five years. What this means is that, under this bill, if someone is refused once, that is the end of that.
We also need to be careful about what we say in Parliament. I mentioned at the beginning that I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert. However, I am very careful to read my files thoroughly and not to say just anything. When people in the House say that murderers are sentenced to only 25 years in prison, that is not the truth. Murderers are sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 25 years. That is the full nuance. We must also be careful when informing the public, so as not to spread misinformation. If parole is not granted, it will not happen. Even in cases where parole is granted, there will always be conditions and supervision, because a life sentence remains a life sentence.
It is always difficult to speak to bills like this, because we know we are touching on sensitive issues and things that are excruciating for families who have experienced this kind of tragedy. I want to reiterate my empathy and sense of duty toward these people. However, that does not mean we should pass an imperfect bill that will cause harm to other individuals. That is the reason, in broad terms, why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately oppose the bill.
Now I want to talk about statistics, as I said I would. When it comes to full parole, the approval rate is 32.4%. That is about three in 10. In the case of day parole, the approval rate is 77%. That is closer to eight in 10. The day parole rate is much higher because there is much closer supervision. It is therefore possible to assess this more effectively.
Now let us consider the results regarding parole and day parole without a repeat offence. The goal is not to say that this person is terrible and must die in prison; the goal is to protect society. This is our duty as legislators: to ensure these people do not reoffend. In the case of day parole, 99% of parole periods are completed without a repeat offence. In the case of full parole, 97% of parole periods are completed without a repeat offence.
With numbers like that, I do not think that, as legislators, we can say that the situation is so appalling and outrageous that the laws need to be changed. Some adjustments may need to be made, as I said earlier. Let us come up with some categories and some level-headed ideas. What I am concerned about is that there might be negative impacts that could lead to people being released sooner, as I said earlier.
Above all, let us continue to focus on victims and their families. I think this is an observation I can share with my Conservative friends. Victims are not being heard and supported properly in our society. We need to support them more. I mentioned earlier that experts are saying that the families' testimony is not very useful. If the testimony is not useful for the decision, why are families being forced to go through that? Why are they made to go through it several times? Some changes could be made.