Robert Goguen

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the tragedy that occurred in his riding is an illustration of why this law has been brought forward, which is to make the protection of the public the paramount consideration when it comes to the release of mentally affected offenders.

Not all mentally-affected offenders will be given high-risk designations, but the court will always look at this question. In the event an offender is in fact a high-risk offender, much more security will be placed around that person, who will not be able to go on unescorted visits. Escorted visits will be for health reasons. Victims will always be informed upon their release, when and if that occurs, and there will be enough information so that victims can avoid encounters with the people whom they are absolutely terrified of.

This is all about one single thing: protecting the public while balancing the protection of the public with the rehabilitation of offenders and causing less of a disruption for the victims, who have basically been sentenced for the rest of their lives through circumstances beyond their control.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

As she knows, the government already provides a wide range of services. When we study this bill in committee, it may very well be that evidence is presented that will lead us to consider even more carefully if there are gaps, if there are things that can be improved and if we can provide better services. We know that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is still waiting and is taking a hard look at this important issue.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. This is a legal policy issue that has preoccupied many Canadians, not only today but over the years.

Recent high profile cases in many parts of Canada have caused Canadians to question whether our laws in this area are strong enough or clear enough to ensure that the public is adequately protected when a risk to public safety exists.

In my remarks, I plan to outline the key milestones of Parliaments consideration of this issue. It is important to canvass the legislative history of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in order to put today's debate into context, essentially to have a clear understanding of how Bill C-54 seeks to build on and improve the existing law.

What used to be referred to as the “insanity defence” was included in Canada's first Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1892. Even before then the defence existed at common law. It stemmed from a decision rendered in 1843 from the British House of Lords. The common law principle was known as the M'Naghten Rules, which stated:

—every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

The text of the first Criminal Code stated:

No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility, or disease of the mind, to such an extent as to render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong.

This legislation continued to apply relatively unchanged and without much public debate for the first half of the 20th century.

In 1977, the Law Reform Commission of Canada produced a report to Parliament on mental disorder in the criminal process, which made 44 recommendations about procedures and dispositions for the mentally disordered offender. In order to consider and respond to the recommendations, the Department of Justice launched the mental disorder project in 1978. The review process led to the release of a discussion paper in 1983, exploring over 100 issues in the area of psychiatric remand, fitness to stand trial, the defence of insanity and criminal responsibility, just to name a few. A final report was produced in 1985, followed shortly thereafter by a draft bill that was introduced in the House of Commons by the then minister of justice John Crosbie.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the draft bill were the first formulation of what would eventually become the new Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

The proposed amendments sought to modernize and clarify the criminal law on mental disorder, strengthen due process and ensure the continued protection of the public. It proposed to change the law in a number of respects.

Under the law at the time, insane or unfit accused were held in strict custody under the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor of the province was known. There was not a requirement to hold a hearing and the lieutenant-governor's decisions, essentially the provincial cabinets, were not subject to appeal. Therefore, there were many gaps with respect to due process that needed to be remedied.

In 1986, the draft bill proposed to remove the role of lieutenant-governors in the process and to establish review boards in all jurisdictions, with uniform procedures to follow across the country. Another significant change in the draft bill was to replace the defence of insanity with the verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”. I will have more to say about that amendment in a moment.

Discussions and consultations with the provinces and territories on the draft bill and other intervening events resulted in the bill not being introduced until 1991 as Bill C-30. It proposed much of what was contained in the 1986 draft bill.

With respect to the previous defence of “not guilty by reason of insanity”, it is noteworthy to highlight the remarks of Kim Campbell, the then minister of justice, about that amendment. She said that a number of psychiatrists had indicated that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity deluded themselves into thinking that they had done nothing wrong and this presented an obstacle to therapy. She also explained that the previous wording was difficult for the public to understand how the accused could be found not guilty despite proof that he committed the offence. The “not guilty by reason of insanity” defence was therefore replaced with a verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”.

However, I think it fair to say that the public still has difficulty understanding a “not criminally responsible” verdict. I believe it is part of our job as parliamentarians to talk about the verdict and to help explain it to the public. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that the verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not an acquittal; nor is it a conviction; it is a special verdict that the court makes when it has been established that a person committed an act or made an omission that constitutes a criminal offence. What has also to be established as a legal issue for the court to determine is whether the person suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the commission of the act, or the omission, that rendered the person incapable of appreciating what he or she did or of knowing that it was wrong.

When the court enters a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, it does not release the accused. The accused is referred to a provincial or territorial review board that is responsible for making orders to govern how the accused will be dealt with.

Bill C-30 introduced three possible orders that could be put into place, depending on the level of risk posed by the person. Only if the person did not pose a significant threat to the public safety would the person be discharged without conditions. If the person posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the person would be kept in custody in a hospital or discharged with conditions. The choice between custody or a conditional discharge is determined in accordance with the level of risk posed to the public safety.

Bill C-30 also introduced the factors that must be taken into consideration in deciding which order should be put in place. The section provides that the court or review board shall take into consideration the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused. This is a key provision of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, as it guides the courts and review boards in their decision-making. It was introduced in 1991 by Bill C-30 to provide criteria and factors that did not previously exist in the legislation.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, I want to take some time to canvass the legislative history of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in order to put Bill C-54 in context and to better understand how it seeks to build on and improve the existing law.

With respect to this key decision-making process, Bill C-54 proposes to clarify that among the existing listed factors that the courts and review boards must consider when they make decisions with respect to the mentally disordered accused, public safety is the paramount consideration.

In clause 9, it says:

When a court or Review Board makes a disposition... it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused, make...[the disposition] that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances....

Bill C-54 would also clarify what is meant by the phrase “significant threat to the safety of the public”. In 1999, the case of Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted that phrase to mean a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent. Bill C-54 would codify the Supreme Court's interpretation.

The mental disorder regime that was introduced in 1992 included new rules and procedures with respect to appeals. I mentioned earlier that the previous law did not provide either party with a right of appeal of a lieutenant-governor's decision. Last year, the Court of Appeal for Ontario identified a problem with one of the appeal provisions in this part of the code. The Criminal Code currently states that when an absolute discharge is appealed, the absolute discharge is automatically suspended. In R. v. Kobzar, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found this automatic suspension to be in violation of sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, but suspended its order to allow Parliament to pass an amendment to correct the defect. The proposed reforms would eliminate the automatic suspension of the absolute discharge and instead would grant the Court of Appeal the discretionary power to suspend the absolute discharge if the mental condition of the accused justifies it.

I support the effort to clarify this area of the criminal law. The reform seeks to improve the existing legislative framework that guides decision-making when courts and review boards hear matters involving mentally disordered accused persons. Bill C-54 would help ensure more consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country. That is a valuable goal.

In my view, the proposed reforms are reasonable measures to take into consideration the protection of the public and to ensure confidence in our justice system. Mentally disordered accused will continue to receive treatment and have their cases overseen by the courts and review boards.

I encourage all members to support passage at second reading of Bill C-54. This would mean that it would be referred to committee for further study.

[Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, every day, Canadians are shocked anew by disturbing allegations emerging from the Charbonneau commission.

Recently, we learned that the leader of the NDP waited 17 long years before disclosing the fact that the former mayor of Laval offered him a bribe.

When asked about the matter in 2010, the leader of the NDP flatly denied that he had been offered an envelope. Then he changed his tune when police questioned him.

To top it off, the leader of the NDP now says that he is proud to have helped the police. He has no reason to be proud of what he did or did not do.

His failure to take action sets a bad example when it comes to fighting corruption. The leader of the NDP must offer to appear before the Charbonneau commission.

Canadians deserve better.

[Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the leader of the NDP has been trying to temper his blatant commitment to a $20-billion carbon tax. The leader of the NDP is angry that Canadians are learning about the reckless tax-and-spend agenda of his party. Is he boiling mad that Canadians have no interest in his $20-billion carbon tax on everything from food to plane tickets to chuckles from the opposition?

The problem is that the leader of the NDP cannot back away from his tax-and-spend agenda, nor his carbon tax, no matter how angry he gets. Canadians will not be bullied by the NDP into supporting its reckless carbon tax. Canadians want the strong, stable leadership of our government. We will not back down from the leader of the NDP, and we will continue to stand up for hard-working taxpayers, who have no interest in the $20-billion carbon tax.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today in support of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

Most of the attention given to Bill S-209 has focused upon the professional mixed martial arts matches that are contemplated by the bill, and that will be my first area of focus. Somewhat less attention has been given to the aspects of the bill that deal with amateur combative sports. I will speak later about that aspect of Bill S-209.

When the prize fight offence was first enacted by Parliament in 1892, there were no exceptions to the offence. In the Statutes of Canada, 1932-33, exceptions were made for boxing prizefights. Currently section 83 of the Criminal Code bans all prizefights, and then lists the exceptions to the offence. The first exception is for amateur boxing matches that meet the minimum glove weight. That is the requirement, the minimum glove weight. Each amateur boxing glove must weigh at least 140 grams.

The second exception is for a pro boxing match that is licensed by a province or an amateur “under glove weight” boxing match that is licensed by a province. Throughout my remarks, please understand that when I say province, this includes territories, which is exactly how the Interpretation Act defines it.

The amateur and professional boxing exceptions that I have just spoken of are the only exceptions that currently exist within section 83 of the Criminal Code. Former Bill C-31, introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament, died on the order paper. This included a proposal to expand the exceptions in section 83, but only for amateur combative sports. An exception to the section 83 ban on prizefights for professional mixed martial arts was not a feature of the former Bill C-31.

Some provinces have chosen to license professional mixed martial arts contests as professional boxing matches under section 83 of the Criminal Code. While not all provinces have interpreted professional boxing in this way, it is clear that it is the responsibility of the Attorney General of the province to determine whether section 83 of the Criminal Code has been breached, and if so, whether to prosecute those involved with a mixed martial arts contest.

In any case, Bill S-209 will certainly clarify that provinces may license professional mixed martial arts contests, and the matches will clearly fall within the section 83 exceptions to the prizefighting offence. Some provinces are awaiting this clarity before they will move to license professional mixed martial arts matches.

Under Bill S-209, a professional boxing match that is licensed by a province and a professional mixed martial arts match that is licensed by a province would be the only forms of professional combative sport that would be exempted from the section 83 prizefighting offence. Bill S-209 does not contemplate other professional combative sport exceptions.

I want to note that professional wrestling has not been considered to engage the prizefight offence provisions in section 83 of the Criminal Code. Although professional wrestlers are trained athletes, professional wrestling is viewed as entertainment that is carefully choreographed and therefore not as a prizefight.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has heard about the many safeguards that exist in the world of professional mixed martial arts, including the use of medical doctors who are independent of the athletes and who do assessments before, during and after the matches. Moreover, unlike boxing, the athlete may tap out, thereby signalling submission. Most importantly, under Bill S-209, the province would determine what additional safeguards and conditions it will attach to the provincial license for a professional mixed martial arts contest.

Professional mixed martial arts and professional boxing each carry a risk of injury. While a knockout is one way to win a match in boxing, a match can also be won on points that include blows to the body. In mixed martial arts, matches can be won by submission holds or by an athlete tapping to signal submission.

It seems to me that it is better to allow provincial regulation of boxing and mixed martial arts, because a regulated environment is a safer environment than one that is not regulated. Conditions can be inserted that promote health and safety of athletes. I am satisfied that the provinces are best placed to determine the acceptance by the provincial public of pro boxing and pro mixed martial arts matches, and to determine the conditions to granting a provincial license for a prizefight. If Bill S-209 is adopted, the police will continue to have investigative responsibility for prizefights in combative sports that are unsanctioned and therefore illegal.

With regard to prosecution, the Attorney General of each province, as I have noted earlier, is responsible for the prosecution of Criminal Code offences within the province. Bill S-209 would not in any way change this investigative or prosecutorial responsibility. I am confident that the police and prosecutors will be vigilant in investigating and prosecuting prizefights that are not sanctioned by a province.

There has been recent media attention to an unsanctioned martial arts contest in the United States in which a Canadian athlete died. Amending the Criminal Code, section 83, would encourage professional athletes in Canada to participate in licensed boxing and mixed martial arts events where there is medical supervision before, during and after the match, and also in situations where rules and conditions of licensing are carefully considered by the provinces.

Let me speak now about amateur combative sports. With one small addition that I shall soon discuss, Bill S-209 reproduces the proposed amateur combative sport amendments to section 83 that were found in former Bill C-31. That bill would have amended section 83 of the Criminal Code in order to expand amateur prizefights beyond amateur boxing to include any amateur combative sport contest that is sanctioned by the province. Similarly, Bill S-209 would expand the range of provincial decision-making related to amateur combative sports.

They key concepts in Bill S-209 relating to amateur combative sports are the following:

First, a province would be able to authorize a prizefight in an amateur combative sport that is on the Olympic program. The addition, found within Bill S-209 but not found in former Bill 31, which I mentioned earlier, adds that a province would be able to authorize amateur prizefights in a combative sport that is on the Paralympic program. Moreover, if the province so chooses, it could require licensing for prizefights in Olympic or Paralympic amateur sports.

Second, a province would be able to authorize a prizefight in an amateur combative sport that the province chooses to place on a list of designated amateur combative sports. Here again, if the province desires, it could require licensing.

Third, Bill S-209 adds an exception for any amateur combative sport prizefight if the province has granted a licence. This gives a province the ability to license an amateur combative sport prizefight even if the amateur combative sport is not on the Olympic program, the Paralympic program or the provincially designated amateur combative sport list.

Bill S-209 would introduce far greater provincial choice on the range of amateur combative sport prizefights that could occur than currently exists under section 83 of the Criminal Code. This seems entirely fitting, because provinces are best placed to determine whether there is public acceptance and what measures need to be in place to assure athlete safety in a particular amateur combative sport or for a particular competition.

In this day and age it is entirely appropriate to update the Criminal Code to ensure that amateur combative sport prizefights are clearly on side with the law. I believe that amateur athletes in combative sports beyond boxing should clearly be able to participate in prizefights if the province has sanctioned the matches.

Members will have noticed a small change in Bill S-209 relating to amateur boxing when compared with the existing section 83 of the Criminal Code. Currently an amateur boxing match that uses the minimum glove weight does not need to have any provincial sanction. If “underweight” gloves are used, currently the match must obtain a provincial licence. With Bill S-209, even if the current minimum glove weight is used for an amateur boxing prize fight, the province will decide whether it will simply allow the match because amateur boxing is on the Olympic program or whether it will require that the amateur boxing prizefight obtain a provincial licence.

While not everyone enjoys watching professional mixed martial arts matches, the sport has reached the point of great popularity in Canada for both fans and athletes. I am much happier to see these events clearly legalized so that whenever a province grants a licence for a match, we can be assured that athlete safety is top of mind.

Having provincially sanctioned matches will make it very clear that a mixed martial arts prizefight that does not hold a provincial licence is an illegal activity. I want to underscore that promoters, participants, surgeons, aides, referees, attendees and even reporters at illegal prizefights are subject to police investigation and to prosecution under section 83 of the Criminal Code.

In closing, I encourage all members to support the bill.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-394, criminal organization recruitment, which aims to address the important issue of gang recruitment. Combatting organized crime has been a long-standing commitment of this government, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for introducing Bill C-394, a bill that would very much continue to build on these efforts.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has reported this bill back to the House with a minor amendment, specifically relating to consistency between the English and French versions of the Criminal Code, and one additional amendment. Before I go on to address these amendments in more detail, allow me to say that this bill makes a strong statement against the serious problem of organized crime groups in this country.

Bill C-394 aims to ensure that the Criminal Code explicitly prohibits recruiting another person into a criminal organization. It does so by proposing a new indictable offence: actively recruiting, soliciting, encouraging or inviting another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences. The person doing the recruiting would not need to be a member of the criminal organization to which the individual is being recruited. This offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment for six months if the individual recruited is under the age of 18.

The committee heard from many witnesses on this issue, and many of them emphasized just how important Bill C-394 would be in the effort to prevent youth from joining criminal organizations in the first place. Organized crime groups often target young people to conduct many of their activities, in part because they know that if a young person is caught, he or she will be treated more leniently by the justice system. For example, we heard testimony about criminal organizations that use 11-year-old children to run drugs. Criminal organizations also target young people who are vulnerable and do not have positive influences in their lives. These young people are often seduced by the promise of a lifestyle of power and money. However, we know that this most often does not turn out to be true and that, in fact, gang life is a dangerous life to choose.

When the Attorney General of Manitoba, Andrew Swan, testified before the committee, he emphasized this:

Gang life closes out family, friends, school, and community. Many young people who get brought into gangs, who are coerced to join gangs, find that there is no financial benefit. There's a cutting off of all the things that the youth have been involved with, and there is no easy way out.

Being involved in a gang increases the risk of violence to an individual and even the risk of death.

The vulnerability of youth in these situations was the primary motivation behind the proposed imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty if the individual recruited is under the age of 18. Attorney General Swan elegantly described this element of the proposed offence as a guaranteed consequence. This element would send a strong message to gangs that Canada's young people are a priority and that we will protect them.

I will be the first to admit that Bill C-394 represents only one of many available responses to a problem that has been recognized by many to require a multi-faceted approach. It is a Criminal Code approach. I do not wish to suggest for one second that this bill alone would prevent all recruitment into a criminal gang. Do I think it is an important response? Yes, I do. Do I think it is a meaningful response? Of course it is. I also recognize that combatting organized crime requires a broad response.

Prevention efforts must also be put in place to provide meaningful alternatives and positive role models so that people who may be thinking about joining a gang have an opportunity to choose otherwise. The government has made significant investments over the past number of years to support programs and youth gang prevention activities. The proposed offence of recruitment by criminal organizations would provide yet another tool for police as they continue to address the growing problem of criminal gangs.

The effort to recruit people into a criminal organization is more than just a problem for the people being recruited. It also represents a significant problem from the perspective of public safety. When people are successfully recruited into a criminal organization to facilitate the organization's ability to commit crime, it enhances the threat posed by these groups in general.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-394 has been reported to the House with a few minor technical amendments, which I support. I am also very pleased to report that there was unanimous support for this bill by all our colleagues at committee.

I would like to now briefly comment on an amendment made by the committee.

Bill C-394 was amended to include coercion in the list of prohibitive behaviour. That particular amendment would have the effect of prohibiting the recruitment, solicitation, encouragement, invitation and coercion of someone to join a criminal organization.

Coercion is a term that is generally used in criminal law to refer to conduct that is for the purpose of compelling someone to do or to refrain from doing something. Its inclusion in the bill's proposed new offences therefore makes sense. It is another way in which people can be, and are being, brought into criminal organizations, which in turn increases the capacity of criminal organizations to commit crime.

Bill C-394 is an important piece of legislation, and I want to thank the committee for its work on this bill.

In closing, I would like to again thank the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for introducing this extremely important bill. The protection of youth is a priority for this government and it should be a priority for all members of this House.

Furthermore, the threat of organized crime continues to be a major concern for Canadians. The thought that youth are being brought in and recruited by such organizations is a very real and troubling issue. It is for this reason that I hope all members will stand in this House and support Bill C-394.

[Justice, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, permit me to thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West for his great question and for his great contribution and work on the public safety committee.

This legislation will give the judges discretion to increase parole ineligibility periods for the most violent and brutal murders in Canada. We think judges should have this discretion. Unfortunately, the NDP do not. Last night, the NDP indicated that it would oppose this bill. This is very disappointing but not surprising. After all, this is the same party that voted against repealing the faint hope clause. We will vote in favour of this bill because it is the right thing to do for victims of these horrible crimes. The NDP should do the same.

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained in the private member's bill before us today.

Let me begin by stating that the amendments contained in Bill C-478, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, are based on the same fundamental propositions that underlie many legislative initiatives passed by Parliament in the interests of victims of crime and of their families and loved ones. The fundamental proposition is a straightforward one. The families and loved ones of murdered victims should not become secondary victims of convicted murderers by being forced to relive the details of their terrible loss every time the killer applies for parole.

As hon. members may recall from past debates, both first and second degree murder is punishable by life imprisonment and is subject to a period, set out in section 745 of the Criminal Code, during which the murderer may not apply for parole. While all 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 longer mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While the mandatory minimum period of parole for second degree murder is ten years, it may be increased in two situations. First, if a person who is convicted of second degree murder has been convicted of either a prior murder or of an intentional killing under the crimes against humanity and war crimes acts, the parole ineligibility period is automatically the same as for first degree murder, namely 25 years. In such cases, the fact that the murderer has killed before is considered to increase his or her moral blameworthiness up to the level of first degree murder.

Second, even if the person convicted of second degree murder has not killed before, a judge has the discretion, under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, to impose a period of parole ineligibility of up to 25 years based on the murderer's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder and any jury recommendation in this regard. In short, the higher the degree of moral blameworthiness associated with a second degree murder, the longer the parole ineligibility period that may be imposed to reflect it.

It is important to bear in mind the concept of moral blameworthiness in considering the proposals put forth in Bill C-478. These proposals are directed at the most morally blameworthy murderers, those in which the murder victim has also been subjected to a kidnapping and to a sexual assault by the murderer. It is hard to imagine a more heinous series of acts committed against the same victim.

The issue before us today is that, with the exception of the case of multiple murders, the maximum parole ineligibility period for a murder permitted under the Criminal Code is 25 years. This is true no matter how terrible the circumstances in which the murder may have been committed.

As for multiple murderers, as members will recall, the government introduced and passed the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. These Criminal Code amendments permit a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period on a multiple murderer for the first murder in accordance with the provisions I have already described. The judge is also authorized to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods of 25 years, one for each victim after the first, to ensure that the life of not one murder victim is automatically discounted at sentencing.

However, as the current law stands, a parole ineligibility of only 25 years would be applied to an individual who has committed one murder and has also kidnapped and sexually assaulted the same victim. This is the exact situation Bill C-478 is attempting to correct. That is, the bill would eliminate the current devaluation of the suffering of the murder victim as well as the apparent disregard of the extreme level of moral blameworthiness exhibited by the murderer. One has only to recall the murder of Tori Stafford by Michael Rafferty to realize the truth of this statement.

Allow me to be more specific about what Bill C-478 would do. First, it would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to require a mandatory parole ineligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of murder who has also been convicted of committing one of the listed kidnapping and abduction offences as well as one of the listed sexual offences against the murder victim.

Second, the bill would authorize a sentencing judge to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years, based upon the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendation in this regard.

As I described earlier, in the context of second degree murder, these are well-established Criminal Code criteria that permit the judge and jury who have heard the evidence at trial to make this important decision.

The purpose of the bill is very clear, very important and very simple. As the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake himself said when he introduced the legislation on February 27:

This bill is not about creating stiffer penalities for sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts do not qualify for parole. My bill is about saving families of victims from having to go through the agony of attending unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings.

In other words, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that families of the victims who have suffered such horrendous violence are not re-victimized by the justice system.

It is far too often the case that the families and loved ones of victims experience a greater degree of pain and experience a greater sense of loss because the justice system has failed to protect them from being re-victimized every two years when their murderer applies, in vain, for parole.

It could not be more appropriate that we are debating the issue raised by Bill C-478 during National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. In this regard, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the theme of this year's event: We All Have a Role. In this regard, our role as members of Parliament during this important week is clear. It is to reflect on the obvious merits of Bill C-478 and agree to move as quickly as possible to committee and to third reading, thus to ensure it becomes the law of the land in the shortest possible time.

In fact, I can think of nothing that would honour the meaning of this week more than if we could see this bill pass through the House and the other place within the year so that we may celebrate it in time for next year's National Victims of Crime Awareness Week and take pride in the role we played in bringing this about.

In closing, I thank all members for their attention and urge them to come together in the interests of the families and loved ones of victims of horrific crimes targeted by Bill C-478, this important legislation that would meet a real need. I strongly urge all members, therefore, to give their full support to the bill and urge its swift passage.

[Justice, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has already had the opportunity to help us crack down on sexual offences against children, but unfortunately he voted against the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We have raised the age of consent. We have cracked down on offenders. We have eliminated house arrest for serious offences. The delays that occurred happened under the previous Liberal government while it was in power.

We have a comprehensive justice agenda, and the opposition should get on board with it.