Bill C-266 (Historical)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

Justice and Human Rights

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

I also want to thank the support staff of the committee.

I especially want to thank our clerk, Marc-Olivier Girard, and our analysts, Chloé Forget and Lyne Casavant, who did terrific work for our committee.

In conclusion, I also want to salute three members of the committee who will not be running again: the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Victoria and the member for West Nova, who all served on the committee for a long period of time over the last three years. They are all great parliamentarians and I think the House will miss each and every one of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good morning, folks, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, starring Mr. James Bezan who has come to our meeting.

Welcome, James.

Before we begin, we just have one budget to adopt for the witnesses for the committee who came for Bill C-266. It's in the amount of $2,500. I was just wondering if we could have a motion to adopt the budget for the review of C-266.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

You also talked about the fact that it would inevitably or likely lead to Crowns contemplating more complicated indictments in order to perhaps pass the test that Bill C-266 considers in order to have the possibility of a higher parole ineligibility period.

Would having more complicated indictments before the courts have an impact on court delays?

[Joseph Wamback]

I'm not a lawyer and I certainly can't debate any of the technicalities that my colleague brought up. What I will tell you is that appeals are inevitable. In any form of extremely violent criminal act, there are always appeals. Victims and their families are always dragged through appeals again and again.

In terms of being able to pre-record a victim impact statement, the feelings you experience and the grief you live with during the trial and during the deliverance of a victim impact statement are completely different from when you deliver a victim impact statement at a parole board hearing. Having a recording of something that happened 15, 20, 25 years ago and dealing specifically with a parole board hearing today are two completely different things, because they involve a completely separate realm of emotional experience and grief. There are other people and other family members who are dragged into it as well.

Again, I'm not going to argue the technicalities and legalities of Bill C-266. What I am going to state very emphatically today is that this would reduce the harm done to those who are survivors and victims of extremely violent, horrific crimes in Canada. I'm very much in support of it, as is the constituency that I've spoken with prior to coming here.

[Lorne Goldstein]

Good morning.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about this rather important piece of legislation.

I bring to you today the perspective of a criminal lawyer as a practitioner.

So that you know who I am and where I'm coming from in my testimony and give it the appropriate weight, I will tell you that I'm certified as a specialist in criminal law by the Law Society of Ontario. My practice is exclusively in criminal and quasi-criminal law. My firm has an appeal division, and prior to coming today, I consulted with them rather extensively.

Writ small, what that means is that I'm the trial lawyer who will be dealing with this legislation if it passes. What I bring to you is, I hope, both something of the 30,000-foot approach, but it's also about what happens when I see this in the latest Criminal Code.

I'll give you a précis of what I'm going to say: There are significant problems with this legislation.

First I should say that despite the flaws in the proposed bill, the goal is laudable. Mr. Bezan has brought forth this amendment to the Criminal Code for the purpose of alleviating the stress and suffering of the families of victims. That is a noble goal and one that is supported by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system, both Crown and defence. Nobody wants to see victims suffer or suffer again and again.

However, the question is how to do that. It is critical to remember that this bill is not designed to be punitive, but if it passes and is challenged, that is going to be an issue in the inevitable charter challenge.

Mr. Bezan has been quite clear: This legislation is designed to target a small group of individuals who have committed such egregious crimes that they statistically and realistically are not going to be paroled. They are the Clifford Olsons of the world. By narrowing the legislation in this way, Mr. Bezan seeks to ensure that the benefits of the bill, such as preventing families from having to attend numerous parole hearings, are not truly in competition with the deleterious effects of preventing release for persons who would otherwise be released. In other words, the people targeted by this bill are not getting out. That is the premise upon which this bill is proposed.

Mr. Bezan is not seeking to balance freedom against victims' rights. This is important, because if the legislation were designed to be punitive, it would run into a whole new series of challenges under section 12 of the charter, and these are challenges that it would likely not survive.

However, even if we accept that this is not a punitive bill and is strictly a procedural bill to alleviate the suffering of the families of victims, this is the wrong forum for it.

My first argument is that the Criminal Code is not where this problem should be remedied or where this goal should be set out.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, CCRA, is the statute that governs the parole process. Modifying it to change the frequency of parole hearings for this narrow group is much easier than modifying the Criminal Code, and it would not trigger any of the problems that I will be discussing.

Further, modifying the CCRA so that the families of victims can have their evidence recorded and played at subsequent parole hearings would also alleviate the pain of providing evidence at each parole hearing.

One or the other or both of these modifications to the CCRA accomplish the goal of alleviating their stress. It would not complicate trial matters. It would not lead to an infringement of the charter. It would also receive little or no push-back from any constituency or stakeholder.

My second argument is that Bill C-266, as it's written now, is likely unconstitutional for the following reason: The text of Bill C-266 reads, “In respect of a person”—and I underline the following—“who has been convicted, in respect of the same victim and the same event or series of events....”

What you need to understand is that with regard to murder, there is a provision under section 231 of the Criminal Code that allows second degree murder, which is all murders, to be elevated for sentencing purposes and classification purposes to first degree murder.

The language of this deemed elevation is subsection 231(5):

Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person

—and I underline this part—

while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following

What are the differences?

In Bill C-266, a conviction for one of the offences is required. In section 231, which is already the law and has already passed charter scrutiny, no conviction is required. What does this mean practically?

If the trier—the jury, usually—based on the charge of the judge finds that a sexual assault occurred as part of the same series of events but not “while committing”, a second degree murder would not be elevated to first degree murder. This is the trickiness, right?

If it's part of the same series of events but it's not “while committing”—there's a temporal break, or a location break, or the jury's left in doubt in respect of those differences of wording—you're not going to trigger the elevation to first degree murder, but you might be triggering Bill C-266. What that means is a charter challenge, because you're punishing a second degree murder more harshly than a first degree murder. The jury may acquit a deemed first degree murder under section 231 and the offence would still be captured.

In other words, the series of events is not as clear as “while committing”, and that is likely a charter violation.

I know from reading the Debates that the member proposing this legislation believes that only a very few people would be captured. Respectfully, he's wrong. What will happen is that the trial Crowns, the people who are tasked with implementing the laws you pass, will have to start charging sexual assault and forcible confinement on the indictment, so an indictment that used to have a single count of murder—very clean, comparatively easy—will now have to have a minimum of three counts: the murder, the underlying sexual offence and the underlying confinement offence.

Presently when those facts are present but not necessarily charged, the Crown can charge first degree and rely on the facts as proven of the forcible confinement and/or sexual assault to elevate the murder to first degree, but because Bill C-266 requires a conviction, the Crown would now have to charge those offences. If the Crown did not charge those additional offences, the victims' rights advocacy groups would quite properly take the Crown to task for not taking the steps to trigger the most onerous sentence possible.

Thus, when the Crown does charge those additional offences, you would have a judge charging a jury that they might find that the sexual assault occurred, but to what standard? If charged, it would have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. There would be a necessarily complex and full charge on the elements of that offence, and then what happens if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about whether or not the sexual assault occurred? What happens to the underlying murder elevation? Would there still be a first degree murder conviction if there's a reasonable doubt about the separate charge of sexual assault on the indictment? We don't go into the jury rooms. We don't know.

What we do know is that the more complicated you make the indictment, the more complicated you make the judge's charge to the jury. The more complicated you make the judge's charge to the jury, the more likely an appeal.

Also, if we're talking about alleviating the stress on the families of the victims, imagine the year that it takes to get to the prelim, and then testimony on the prelim, and then the year it takes to get to trial, and then the testimony on the trial—and now there's an appeal. There's an appeal because this is not clear.

What if the appeal is successful? That's another year for the appeal, and then there's a retrial, which is another year. Now we're talking about four or five years not of potential parole hearings but of annual testimony, not of having the option of reliving the nightmare of being a family member to a victim as captured here, but of actually having to testify and actually having to hear the evidence of the forensic officers and the witnesses and reliving the traumatic effects of the trial.

This is a mess, because it's treating potential second degree murder charges like firsts and adding in a number of complications. It's ripe for challenges.

My third argument is a similar legal argument. It is the question of subsumed offences.

Forcible confinement is often an element of the offences of both murder and sexual assault, so where a choking is part of the sexual assault, it would now be charged separately, and that necessarily means another and more complicated charge.

The people who were contemplated and mentioned in the debates would not be captured by this, because they were not charged separately. What you will have is not the few people intended, but necessarily many more people charged on much more complicated indictments, leading to many more appeals, and that is not the goal.

I urge the committee to reject this bill and invite modification to the CCRA to accomplish the same goal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Howard Bebbington, Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. We appreciate this opportunity to appear to express our views on Bill C-266.

For those who are not familiar with the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, let me take a minute to tell you that we are a voluntary sector organization. We were originally founded in 1919 and are celebrating our 100th anniversary this year, so we've been around for a little while.

We have approximately 700 members across the country and we represent all aspects of the criminal justice system: lawyers, academics, the police community, correctional officers and victim support officers. We are one of the few voluntary sector organizations working in the criminal justice field—and working to improve it—that attempts to accommodate all perspectives on the criminal justice system. I think that makes our views stronger.

At any rate, with respect to the matter at hand today and with the greatest respect to victims—including the families of those who have suffered tragic events like the ones contemplated by the bill—I must say that we are opposed to this bill.

In our criminal justice system, all persons convicted of murder are sentenced to life imprisonment. This means that anyone convicted of murder, whether or not they are ever released on parole, will be under the control and supervision of correctional authorities for the remainder of their natural lives. There is no warrant expiry for an offender serving a life sentence.

For first degree murder, as you know, the mandatory 25 years specified is not the sentence imposed by our courts but the period of parole ineligibility that the offender must serve before being considered for parole. After that time, the decision on whether or not to gradually release and reintegrate the offender into society is made by the Parole Board.

It is our view that if we don't have confidence in the parole system's ability to get this decision right, we should look at improving the parole system for the sake of all parole decisions, rather than look at amending the sentence for first degree murder, as is proposed in Bill C-266.

If Parliament does amend the law for this type of case, we could easily be caught in an endless cycle of amending the law to further increase the parole ineligibility period to respond to yet another case presenting even more horrific facts. Regrettably, it is always possible to imagine a more horrific fact pattern. I won't delay you with details, but I suggest as an example that if you add to the circumstances contemplated in this bill, torture or extreme brutality are not necessarily covered. Do we keep increasing the parole ineligibility period? In the case of criminal harassment, an intentional killing committed in the context of criminal harassment is not covered by this bill. If this bill is passed, will we see on the order paper more bills suggesting we increase it to 50 years?

[Joseph Wamback]

Thank you.

I'm Joe Wamback.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I want to thank you for for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

I am the chair and founder of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation, which has been in existence since the year 2000. We have almost two decades of experience in dealing with victims of extreme violence from coast to coast, from Victoria to St. John's.

I've also partnered with the health sciences psychology department at York University so that we can create a greater understanding of psychopathy and extreme violence among individuals in Canada and the resulting trauma to victims and their families. We also sponsor psychological counselling for victims of extreme violence throughout the country.

I am here today in support of Bill C-266. I believe it is a win-win situation for all involved. The bill maintains the judicial independence that we all seek in Canadian society. Secondly, it prevents the continued revictimization of those who have suffered so much through acts of horrific crime in Canada.

We're not dealing with a large constituency. We're dealing with a handful of individuals who have created such devastation in Canadians' lives that we have to find a better way of dealing with them than by revictimizing those who have to attend Parole Board hearings time and time again.

My first introduction to this type of situation was Clifford Olson. We are now friends with 11 family members of victims of Clifford Olson. The revictimization that those individuals had to suffer and live through during those parole hearings—Clifford Olson was a master at calling for these hearings almost every year—was just unprecedented.

Throughout the 20-year history that we have been working with victims of crime and from the 20 years of research, we've specifically seen increases in disease. Cancer is four times the national average in that particular constituency, as well as heart disease and mental illness. The revictimization that occurs through continued parole hearings takes it toll on the lives of not only the direct victims but also on the victims' families. It is a large circle, and it gets larger and larger as time goes on. For example, when my son was hurt, my grandmother passed away. She could not deal with the injuries my son incurred.

Typically when you're debating and deliberating on criminal justice changes, measures and policies, including parole, for the most part those debates have ignored one vitally important variable, which is the victims and their families. I believe the victims' lives have value that is of equal value to anybody else's in this country. They should not be ignored when we are concerning ourselves with any factor in criminal justice reform. Our obligation here, as Canadians, is harm reduction. I'm convinced that Bill C-266 is a step in the right direction.

I've looked at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which indicates that we're dealing with nine to 10 individuals a year, but I don't know where he got the number from statistically. If they were kept incarcerated for another year, the cost is approximately $1 million per incarcerated individual. That was the end of the report.

Unfortunately, the analysis—either intentionally or unintentionally—did not consider the cost to society of allowing earlier parole applications for those most violent individuals who are targeted by Bill C-266. It deals singularly and specifically with the increased length of incarceration.

It does not consider the cost of repeat offender parole programs, which police-based statistics tell us are in the tens of millions of dollars annually. It does not consider the financial impact of social services for supporting the victims. I have witnessed first-hand the agonizing grief and revictimization forced upon victims, families and even their communities at large when they must relive the horrific details of the most heinous crimes committed against their loved ones.

Trials, convictions and sentencing are not cathartic for survivors. Grief is a never-ending journey, and parole hearings extend and reignite that grieving process. Many victims, survivors, friends and family members are unable to work for months before a hearing. After the hearing, they are terribly affected by having to relive those experiences. Some lose their jobs. They can't participate. They can't continue to become participating members in Canadian society. They can't pay their taxes or any other societal obligations, and many rely on the social safety nets we have in Canada today. All these have costs that are associated with revictimization.

My research also demonstrates that divorce is the inevitable consequence of a child homicide, which creates incredible financial and societal inequities for siblings of homicide victims. Some become a permanent burden on Canadian society. Medical complications are rampant, and revictimization is rampant, equally staggering and profound.

In 2016, Alberta justice minister Kathleen Ganley stated that consecutive parole ineligibilities can be a “useful tool” as a signal to criminals that multiple crimes may lead to a longer sentence. She stated, “It can potentially have a beneficial effect in terms of signalling to people who are doing these things that it's not a good idea.” These are direct quotes, by the way. “It can have a sort of deterrent effect. That being said, obviously it's only intended to be used in certain circumstances.”

She is referring to the most violent and horrific of crimes. We don't see a lot of those in Canada, fortunately, but they are becoming more frequent. I've just attended a conference in Toronto on mass homicides. People in this country and around the world are dealing with this, because it's becoming more and more prevalent as society moves forward. We've had two of them in Toronto just recently. One was the van attack on Yonge Street. The other one was the shooting on Danforth Avenue.

The victimization that occurs, and the cost of that victimization, cannot be calculated. It's the same thing with parole hearings. When victims have to attend parole hearings and face the individuals who have harmed their child or loved ones, the effects are devastating.

My hope is that you will give great consideration to Bill C-266 to allow the judiciary to introduce extended parole ineligibilities for the worst of the worst.

I want to thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will resume this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as we continue our study of Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

It is a great pleasure to be joined by this panel of witnesses who are here to share their expertise with us today.

We are joined by Mr. Joseph Wamback, the founder and chair of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation. Welcome.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

I just want to put on the record a couple of quotes from some of the families. I mentioned Linda Bright, Janet and Karen Johnson, Darlene Prioriello and Sharon Rosenfeldt's son Daryn.

Linda Bright was only 16 years old when she was abducted by Donald Armstrong in Kingston. He applied for parole on numerous occasions, including most recently in 2012. Linda's sister Susan Ashley, with whom I worked on this bill as well, said, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my mom and dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”. Linda's mother, Margaret Bright, said, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I've had to do in the last 20 years”.

Sharon Rosenfeldt has been very active with the national victims of crime organization and has attended some of my press conferences in the past. She appeared at this committee in 2015 and really drove this home when she was on CBC, as I mentioned, talking about what happened to her son and how the system needs to be fixed. Daryn was only 16 and was a victim of Clifford Olson. They had to go through the faint hope clause hearings in 1997, and parole hearings in 2006 and 2010 before Olson passed away.

He was denied parole every time. Her husband, Gary, who has since passed away, said, “What's really horrendous about this...is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives. And this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”

Sharon said, “Attending parole hearings every two years or five years after the offender has served 25 years is cruel and unusual punishment for the victim's family”.

Terri Prioriello, whose sister Darlene was killed in 1982, said, “Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.”

She went on to say in an interview in 2007, talking about her mother's impact statement that she read into the record, “I listened to her read it and it was like she was burying Dolly all over again. It was so upsetting for Mom. She cried. Families shouldn't have to go through this all over again.”

Donald Armstrong killed Susan Ashley's sister. Susan Ashley said in 2012 in the London Free Press, “He cannot be fixed. And to put him in the community, it's a public risk to any woman that he can have access to. My family and myself, we really don't want to see another family victimized like we were. It's a terrible thing to have to endure, it's a lifetime of pain and suffering.”

Colleagues, Bill C-266 is a bill that is needed in our judicial system. It is fair; it is just, and it is compassionate.

It is fair because it doesn't change the outcomes of current murderers who are incarcerated because they never get parole. All the research we have done proves that they are incarcerated for life. It is just because we are ensuring that the system still gives the power to the courts and the judges to use their discretionary powers and authority to determine the credibility and circumstances of each case and to apply the sentencing fairly and justly. It is compassionate. I can't stress that enough. This is about standing up for the families of the victims, making sure they don't have to endure ongoing and unnecessary Parole Board hearings at which they are revictimized and which all too often feed the depravity of those murderers.

Thank you.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

It's indeed a pleasure to be able to appear on my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), Bill C-266, the short title of which is the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act.

I originally introduced this bill in the first session of the 41st Parliament as Bill C-478. I was promoted in 2013 to parliamentary secretary for defence and had to drop my private member's bill, even though it had received second reading and had been sent it to committee.

The bill was picked up in the second session of the 41st Parliament by our former colleague Colin Mayes, who was the MP for Okanagan—Shuswap, as Bill C-587. It made it through committee, but then there was dissolution of Parliament for the 2015 federal election and that put an end to the bill's moving forward.

This bill amends section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada to give the power to our judicial system to increase parole ineligibility up to 40 years from the current maximum of 25 years for those who commit a crime of abduction, sexual assault and murder.

Right now, there are charges for all those crimes, under sections 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283 of the Criminal Code for abduction, while sexual assault charges are defined under sections 151 to 153.1, 271, 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code, as well as murder in the first and second degree.

What this bill will do is give the full discretion to our judges and juries. After an individual is convicted of crimes, the judge must ask the jury if they “wish to make a recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release for parole”. It is not mandatory for the jury to provide a recommendation, and the judge is not beholden to the jury in taking the recommendation, should it be made.

I know there are some concerns around whether or not this violates section 12 of the charter regarding cruel and unusual punishment. I should state again that this is strictly judicial discretion. The parole ineligibility period can be set at anywhere from 25 years up to 40 years, based upon the discretion of the judge. When determining the parole ineligibility period, the judge must have “regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission”.

I modelled my bill after former Bill C-48, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act. Again, that piece of legislation has stood up to a charter challenge and afforded judges the ability to extend parole ineligibility periods for multiple murder convictions. Rather than having them concurrent, they are now served consecutively.

The way I came up with 40 years for parole ineligibility for the commission of a crime that involves the abduction, sexual assault and murder of an individual, it's on that same transaction. Again, looking at consecutively serving that sentence, for murder, it's 25 years without parole, while abduction faces a maximum parole ineligibility period of 10 years and sexual assault faces a maximum parole ineligibility period of 4.6 years. That's how I arrived at 40.

I can't stress enough that this bill targets the most depraved of our society. It targets those who have never received parole, so we aren't doing anything to further punish the criminal. This is about sparing the families from appearing at unnecessary parole board hearings.

As you know, right now, even if somebody has a life sentence for committing a crime, they can, at year 23, start applying for parole. All too often, we've witnessed that when these individuals apply for parole, they use it as an opportunity to feed their depraved nature and revictimize the families. That's why I brought this forward. It was to be compassionate to the families who have gone through these ongoing, unnecessary and extremely painful Parole Board hearings.

When it comes to the type of criminal this targets, we're talking about criminals like Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic, who abducted, raped and murdered Tori Stafford; Paul Bernardo, who back in the 1990s abducted, raped and murdered Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. One of the things that really drove me on this was, if you remember back in 2009-10, the ongoing investigation in the arrests of Terri-Lynne McClintic and Michael Rafferty. It was all over the news. As a father of three daughters, it really hurt me knowing that this poor little girl had suffered so badly.

Clifford Olson, at that time, was diagnosed with cancer and was dying in prison. I was driving around in my riding listening to CBC and they were talking to Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son, Daryn, had been murdered by Clifford Olson. Clifford Olson applied for parole on three occasions. First he used the faint hope clause which existed at that time, and then at year 23 and year 25, he applied for parole again. He used those opportunities to describe in graphic detail how he murdered the Rosenfeldts' son. He would send letters to them, hoping that they'd appear at the Parole Board hearing so he could describe how he killed Daryn.

We know that these individuals never get parole. Parole boards have been very consistent that these psychopaths are never released, so why would we put the families through these ongoing and unnecessary Parole Board hearings? They feel obligated to be there, to stand up for the rights of their loved one, to read their victim impact statement and ensure that the Parole Board never forgets about the heinous crimes that these individuals have committed.

We're also talking about David James Dobson, who murdered Darlene Prioriello. I worked quite closely with Darlene's sister Terri on this bill. Donald Armstrong abducted, raped and murdered Linda Bright back in 1978, and Glenna Fox. David Threinen abducted, raped and murdered Dahrlyne Cranfield, who was only 12 years old; Robert Grubesic, who was nine; Samantha Turner, who was eight; and Cathy Scott, who was seven years old. He died in custody.

We're talking about the Russell Williams, the Luka Magnottas, the Robert Picktons. More recently, in Toronto, Bruce McArthur killed eight men. He abducted them, raped them and then brutally murdered each and every one of his victims.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will now resume our meeting for our first meeting of studying Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

Our first witness is our colleague Mr. James Bezan, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

Mr. Bezan, it's a pleasure to have you before the committee. The floor is yours.

Justice

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present e-petition 2126 with almost 750 names on it. It is in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-266, the respecting families of brutalized persons act.

As members will recall, individuals convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering currently can get parole at year 23. The petitioners call on Canada to pass the bill to give the courts the power to increase parole ineligibility to 40 years to ensure that families of victims are not revictimized. The bill is fair, just and compassionate.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-266 under private members' business.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Burnaby South, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Thursday, May 16, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions; and that, the recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility) standing in the name of the Member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, currently scheduled today, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business, be further deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Thursday, May 16, 2019, immediately after the opposition motion is disposed of.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-266, respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which was tabled by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

This bill would see the parole ineligibility for Canada's most heinous and degenerate criminals have the possibility of being raised up to 40 years. As it stands currently, the maximum time for parole ineligibility is 25 years, with the first hearings starting at 23 years. One can imagine the families of the victims of these heinous crimes having to return and relive the events that took their loved ones away from them, and not only once. If the convicts are denied parole, and many times they are because of the brutality they undertook, then new parole hearings happen every two years. This, of course, creates the potential to make the families of the victims relive their nightmare over and over again.

This bill is not designed for the average criminal committing the average crime. It is designed for the worst of the worst, offenders who had such disregard for the dignity of the human person that they ought not to see the light of day. This should not be seen as a bill to increase the punishment of these individuals, but to protect the victims' families.

This bill would empower the courts to make decisions based on a jury's recommendation. I will quote from the bill:

[The judge] may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made under section 745.22, by order, substitute for twenty-five years a number of years of imprisonment (being more than twenty-five but not more than forty) without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances.

This is a good piece of legislation, and it will protect the families of the actual victims of a heinous crime.

I would just like to draw the attention of my colleagues on the government side to the support of some of their members who support this bill. That includes the member for Charlottetown, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, the member for Bourassa, the member for Malpeque, the member for Sydney—Victoria, the member for University—Rosedale, who is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, the member for Regina—Wascana, another minister, the member for Labrador, the member for Winnipeg North, the member for Beauséjour, the member for Cardigan, the member for Ottawa South, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the member for Vancouver Quadra, the member for Halifax West, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for Humber River—Black Creek, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, and the member for Spadina-Fort York.

Most importantly, I would draw to my colleagues' attention that the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, also expressed his support during this bill's previous introduction to the House in the last Parliament.

This bill, with the support of all of those members, who now sit on the government side, goes against the standard operating procedure for the government, because when it comes to the victims of crime, we have not seen a great track record of the Liberals doing the right thing. The Prime Minister, a supporter of this bill in its first incarnation, has long tried to paint criminals and the perpetrators of crime as victims of society.

The Prime Minister said, in the wake of a horrible terrorist attack in the United States, that the terrorists must have been feeling excluded and marginalized by society, and that we really need to look at the root causes of these actions.

These terrorists killed three people and maimed hundreds more, but according to the Prime Minister, they are the victims here. The Prime Minister, again, showed how much he cares for victims when he paid a convicted terrorist $10.5 million, after he killed a U.S. medic, Sergeant Chris Speer, leaving behind a wife and children who are still trying to find justice.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to participate in the debate on private member's Bill C-266, which was introduced by an opposition member. This is the second time that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has introduced this piece of legislation. He previously introduced it in 2013, also as a private member's bill.

First and foremost, this bill is for victims of crime. The principle of balanced justice is essential in Canada. It is important in our lives as parliamentarians and, especially, in our lives as citizens. Any time we want to, or have to, amend the Criminal Code, we should be making sure that victims are treated just as well as anyone else, which is exactly what this bill would do. It would spare victims from having to relive their painful experience at a parole hearing after having already relived it during the original trial.

The bill essentially seeks to increase the period of ineligibility to automatic parole from 25 years to 40 years. The reason the hon. member introduced this bill is that far too often we have seen criminals who committed sordid acts get released after 25 years. By the way, I will point out that the bill we are discussing does not concern all offenders. It specifically concerns those who were convicted of abduction, sexual assault or murder.

Not only are these people released after 25 years, but their victims have to testify again before the Parole Board of Canada so that the judge can determine whether the offender will be released on parole. That is the problem: the victims of a crime committed 25 years ago have to relive these events and testify all over again about the pain they suffered, the legitimate fears they might have 23 or 25 years later, and especially the horror they have lived with this entire time.

In those situations let us think first and foremost of the victims. That is why Bill C-266 is specifically designed to protect victims from having to relieve this pain so soon after their assault. For victims of such serious crimes, the scars never heal.

The bill is not dictatorial, because ultimately, the judge will be the one who decides whether to grant parole after hearing the case and analyzing the situation. It is not automatic or official, and there is no cause and effect.

It is also important to realize that the families affected by the tragedies may suffer as much as the victims themselves, and they are also asked to testify about why the criminal should not get parole. This causes them further pain, and they could be revictimized if they have to testify again under similar circumstances. We need to think about them.

As I said earlier, this is not the first time this bill has come before the House. Apart from a few details, it is virtually identical to the one tabled in 2013 by the same member. The interesting thing is that, at the time, certain people supported the bill. I would like to quote something that was said at the time, presumably in English:

I am pleased with what I have heard from the member, especially given the fact that the bill would allow the judge to use it as a discretionary authority. As such, I feel comfortable supporting what the member has brought to the House today.

I could not have said it better myself. Who spoke those fine words? It was none other than our friend, the ineffable and very vocal member for Winnipeg North. Back then, he supported the bill. As I said, I suppose he made the comments in English, but I had fun quoting them in French.

He was not the only one who supported the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's private member's bill. At the risk of repeating myself, I must say I would rather say his name than the name of his riding.

Many members on the government's front bench supported this initiative. They included, among others, the following members: the member for Charlottetown; the member for Cape Breton—Canso, who has sadly announced that he will not be running in the next election and we do not know whether he would have been re-elected for that is up to the voters; the current member for Bourassa, with whom I had the pleasure of serving in the National Assembly; the member for Malpeque, chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, who works very hard; the member for Sydney—Victoria; the member for Toronto Centre; the member for Vancouver Centre; the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, the current Minister of Transport; the member for Wascana, the current Minister of Public Safety; the member for Labrador; the member for Winnipeg North, as I said earlier; the member for Beauséjour,whom we wish a speedy recovery of course; the member for Cardigan,who is still Minister of Veterans Affairs; the member for Ottawa South; the member for Scarborough—Guildwood; the member for Vancouver Quadra, the fourth President of the Treasury Board in the last six months and my counterpart as I am my party's Treasury Board critic; the member for Halifax West, the Speaker of the House; the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the parliamentary committee that studied physician-assisted dying; the member for York West; the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor,whom I hold in high regard and with whom I have had the pleasure of appearing before a few parliamentary committees; the member for Trinity—Spadina, a riding in the Toronto area; and the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister of Canada.

All of those people are current government members. They are examining this bill, which is a good thing. However, I would like to remind them that, in the past, in 2013, they voted in favour of a bill that was more or less identical to Bill C-266.

In closing, I would like to point out that, just a few minutes ago, I was very impressed by the remarks of the member for Niagara Falls. As members know, he has been diligently serving this country since 1984, when he was first elected to Parliament. He has held high-ranking positions with dignity. He is an inspiration to all those of us who aspire to be part of the executive branch of our Parliament.

The member for Niagara Falls served as defence minister and justice minister, as well as in other capacities. For six years, his honesty and fairness served as an inspiration to us all. As everyone knows, that is an extremely sensitive job, and that was especially true at the time. It requires a great deal of delicacy and exemplary and inspiring honesty. The member for Niagara Falls served for six years. He is probably the one who has held the position of minister of justice and attorney general the longest. He will always be an inspiration to his successors.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to increasing parole ineligibility. The bill seeks to protect victims and reduce the possibility of re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications victims are required to attend.

The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of a loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances, as is often the case.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, specifically Bill C-478 and Bill C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not go further than that. Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was convicted be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all hon. members of the House can agree that minimizing the trauma, psychological suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal policies of the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime. For example, victims have the right to receive certain information about the offender in the charge of the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service of Canada.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to provide some examples in English.

I would note that currently victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing, but if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to the recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members, as I said in French. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said. They may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

These legislative provisions and policies were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them.

This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group and that while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and feel empowered by having their voices heard.

Anything we can do to better support victims of crime merits serious consideration, and I support sending the bill to committee for further study. I am also mindful that changes to the laws governing our criminal justice system can sometimes have unintended consequences, so I hope that committee study of this legislation, either in this Parliament or in the future, will include a range of witnesses and perspectives.

Clearly, there are various ways of providing support to victims. The proposed changes in Bill C-266 could be one way to improve the experience of victims during the post-sentencing stages of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to have a fair, just, and compassionate criminal justice system for all those involved.

For all these reasons, I will be monitoring closely the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to increasing parole ineligibility.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for introducing the bill. It is certainly consistent with his great record here in Parliament. I was pleased and honoured when I served as Minister of National Defence and he was parliamentary secretary. He worked very hard to see that justice prevailed in every possible opportunity, whether it involved Ukraine or Iranian human rights and democratic issues.

The member has always stood up for the rights of victims, and I support and laud his efforts here in Canada and abroad. He was one of 13 Canadians banned from travelling to Russia under retaliatory sanctions imposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2014. I loved his retort to that. He said, “Sanctions by Russia will not silence me standing up for Ukraine. This is a badge of honour for all critics of the Crimea Invasion”.

This is what this legislation is all about: standing up for what is right.

I have to tell the House how proud I was as defence minister when he went personally to Ukraine to help get the equipment and all the supplies that people in Ukraine needed. I remember seeing him on television and thinking what a great moment it was for a member of Parliament and for him personally.

Under Stephen Harper, I was justice minister for six and a half years. One thing about the Harper administration is that it was completely consistent in standing up for the rights of victims. We did not hear too much from the NDP about victims, but it was certainly a priority of the Harper government to make sure that people had confidence in our criminal justice system.

I had the opportunity to meet with many victims over the years. I remember the grandparents of one of Clifford Olson's victims telling me how awful it was that Clifford Olson was not even prosecuted for the murder of their grandchild. Why? It was because it was already locked in. He received 25 years with no parole, so the Crown decided not to proceed.

How did that make the family feel? They told me they were victimized themselves, because there was no justice at all for their grandchild.

As a result of those kinds of cases, our Conservative government introduced the possibility of consecutive sentencing, which again is up to the courts to decide. It is not mandatory.

The first case involving consecutive sentencing was in New Brunswick, after three members of the RCMP had been murdered. The person convicted of that crime became ineligible for parole for 75 years, and I did not get one email. There were no letters, no phone calls, no demonstrations whatsoever from people who thought it was a bad idea that this individual would have to basically spend the rest of his life behind bars.

It was the same with the faint hope clause, which we heard quite a bit about. I have to disagree with the hon. member as to why that legislation was put in.

I remember the day I introduced that bill in Parliament. I went outside for a scrum, just outside the House of Commons chamber. I remember one reporter asking me if I thought people were going to stop committing murder now because they would not be eligible for the possibility of parole after 15 years. I told her the truth. I said I was not sure why anybody would commit murder, that it was a mystery to me, but I told her that what I did know about the bill was that it would reduce victimization of the people who have suffered because of what someone else had done.

Here is what was happening: No matter how disgusting the individual was and how unlikely it was that he or she would get parole, many times they would apply after 15 years. The families would tell me they were victimized again. They told me they were worried and upset at the possibility of the person who killed a member of their family getting out.

Their victimization does not stop there. It would happen again after 17 years, 19 years, 20 years, 21 years, 23 years. Every time it came up, they would tell me the same thing: How awful it was that there was a possibility that the person could be released.

When we introduced the bill to get rid of the faint hope clause, we were thinking about victims. That is who we were standing up for. That is what wanted to do during our time in government.

There is another part to this. If people see sentences that do not align with the seriousness of a crime, people's confidence in the criminal justice system will be reduced. It is absolutely vital that Canadians have complete confidence that the criminal justice system will do the right thing. If the penalty for people who commit terrible, serious crimes does not align with those crimes, people's confidence in the criminal justice system will be decreased. This is not what we need.

One of my constituents, a woman by the name of Marcia Penner, recently wrote to me about the Tori Stafford case. She said:

“I am writing you today to ask you to fight for the justice of Tori Stafford. The monster (Terri-Lynne McClintic) who took this sweet girls life needs to be put back behind bars where she belongs.”

“As you may or may not remember, I was best friends with Kristen French. Over 26 years later we are suffering the adverse effects of the lack of justice.”

“Please don't let this happen for Tori. Let's fight for her, and keep her killer locked up where she belongs. Behind bars, and away from more innocent children.”

This is consistent with what I have heard over the years.

Members may remember the Bernardo case, which took place in my area. On the 25th anniversary of the death of Kristen French, Donna French and the mother of Leslie Mahaffy went to a hearing. As members remember, both girls were abducted, brutally tortured, raped and murdered by Bernardo and Karla Homolka. When Bernardo was up for the possibility of parole for all his crimes, Debbie Mahaffy stated at the hearing:

We have had to relive Leslie’s pain and horror—our pain and horror, as if it happened yesterday, not 27 years ago.

Leslie’s violent, horrific death changed everything in my psyche and in my life.

I do not want to be in the same room as Bernardo but here I am

She went on to say:

The effect of this parole hearing allows Bernardo to abduct our beautiful memories of Leslie as he had inserted himself and the ugliness of her death into our lives yet again.

Donna French added:

It’s painfully unthinkable that Paul Bernardo’s parole ineligibility did not change by a single second, a single minute as a result of his unspeakable murder of Kristen.

It so diminishes her life. I appreciate that the Criminal Code has been amended to lengthen the parole period, but it is not retroactive.

However, going forward, it will be.

That is why I am supportive of this. I am sure there are members in the Liberal Party who, in the previous Parliament, voted in favour of a bill identical to this one.

I know I am speaking on behalf of my Conservative colleagues when I say that we will continue to stand up for and worry about victims. We will continue to ensure that people can have confidence in the criminal justice system. Our party was all about that in the years we governed. I hope people will support my hon colleague who brought this forward and do the right thing.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats support progressive crime and justice legislation that seeks to reduce instances of violent crime and offer chances to increase rehabilitation for those convicted, all the while upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In our 2018 policy paper, adopted by democratic convention, New Democrats clearly stated absolute support for the following: investment in crime prevention, with a focus on at-risk youth and gangs; support for community and not-for-profit organizations active in crime prevention; emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration wherever possible, particularly for treating addictions; maintenance of a youth criminal justice system that is distinct from adult courts; support for restorative justice initiatives, including redress and restitution whenever possible; safeguards for the rights, health and dignity of prisoners; adaptation of sentencing rules to allow, under judicial discretion, more severe sentences for violent crimes; strengthening the rules for sentencing dangerous offenders; and the prohibition of reinstatement of the death penalty.

Legislation like Bill C-266 tries to create the appearance of a tough-on-crime stance without addressing the issues at the heart of the matter, and that is the reason we will not be supporting this bill. How could we, when it misses the entire point of protecting the public and does nothing to prevent recidivism?

In contrast to Conservatives, who believe in tough-on-crime policies that please their base and do little to reduce crime, and in fact cost so much more, New Democrats believe that our criminal justice system should be structured around the principles of restorative justice. Canada's justice department defines restorative justice as a strategy that “focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime, while holding offenders responsible for their actions. A restorative approach is being used in different criminal justice cases across Canada. When effectively used [and supported by governments], restorative justice can lead to better outcomes for victims and offenders and reduce the number of cases that go to trial.”

The Conservatives may be able to fundraise by claiming that progressives are soft on crime, but restorative justice is not soft on crime. It is effective, both in terms of costs and in terms of reducing the potential for traumatizing victims. We know, for instance, that there is empirical evidence to prove that when a restorative justice framework is applied in a conviction, the victims are more satisfied with the outcome than when restorative justice is not employed. Restorative justice substantially reduces repeat offending for many, many offenders. It helps reduce post-traumatic stress symptoms in victims and the related public and private costs. It often results in a reduced desire for revenge on the part of victims against their offenders, and it helps reduce the cost of administering the criminal justice system.

Bill C-266 is not based on the principles of restorative justice. It proposes to increase the period of parole ineligibility from 25 years to up to 40 years for those who are convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of an individual in a single event or a series of events. While we absolutely understand that this bill is designed to protect the victim's loved ones from appearing at parole sentencing, it removes any foreseeable chance of release and therefore reduces the potential for rehabilitation. It is an approach that stubbornly refuses to take into account any and all circumstances regarding the offending individual.

There is also the question of whether this bill would stand up to a charter challenge. As life sentences are currently viable only with parole to 25 years, and with the abolishment of the faint hope clause, any longer sentence may fall under inhumane and degrading punishment. The Harper government fulfilled its 2011 election promise to abolish the faint hope clause, which allowed prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole eligibility period greater than 15 years to apply for early parole once they had served 15 years.

To compound this situation, the legislation before us serves to remove good behaviour as an incentive in correctional facilities, which of course increases the potential of violence toward other inmates and correctional workers. We should absolutely be concerned about the safety of correctional workers.

In Canada, the constitutionality of indefinite detention imposed by life sentences is based on the potential for eventual release on parole. This has resulted in the 25-year maximum before eligibility for parole. In the past, courts have allowed, on a case-by-case basis, sentences where eligibility exceeded 25 years. This gave the courts the needed discretion in the most serious crimes involving dangerous offenders and in situations where the full 25-year sentence was not appropriate. However, this was prior to the abolishment of the faint hope clause. Now that the faint hope clause is no longer in effect to mitigate increases in eligibility periods beyond the 25 years, any increase beyond that would likely be deemed unconstitutional and cruel and unusual punishment.

Harper's Bill C-48 passed in 2011 and was used only four times to issue 75-year parole ineligibility. All four of these cases are currently under appeal. One has been challenged in Alberta's court of appeal because of constitutional concerns. Legal experts expect to see the case appear at the Supreme Court of Canada in the coming years due to the length of sentences that could be unconstitutional.

As I am sure members will recall, the rationale for the faint hope clause was to incentivize offenders to participate in programming and work towards rehabilitation. This, in turn, leads to reduced violence and better behaviour towards other inmates and our correctional workers. Inmates with nothing left to lose are more likely to resort to violence and to be more difficult to manage in the prison population. In 2010, internal studies by the justice department found that this was precisely the case, with lower recidivism rates among faint hope offenders and better behaviour in the community.

The faint hope clause was not a free pass to parole. Canada is very selective in who is granted parole. It is very rare for those who are convicted of the most serious crimes to ever be granted parole. Those who are granted parole have shown good behaviour and are less likely to offend than the general population of Canada. It is fascinating that the rates of offence are below those in the general population.

It is more humane and much cheaper to release those who qualify for parole than to keep them behind bars. Those who were given life sentences who are paroled are still supervised until their deaths, with regular reporting to parole officers.

It is also worth pointing out that despite opposition from Canada's defence lawyers, the repeal of the faint hope was supported unanimously by Conservatives and Liberals alike. The NDP and the Bloc opposed it, of course.

Much like the abolishment of the faint hope clause and the introduction of consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, Bill C-266 would remove the incentive for good behaviour in correctional facilities and thwart any possibility of rehabilitation. It would create tension in Canada's prisons, and prisoners and correctional officers would be endangered.

The Canadian Bar Association said:

[it] does not believe that Canadians would benefit from a system where individuals are condemned to spend their entire lives behind bars, with no hope of ever being released. Even those convicted of homicide, the most serious of all crimes, should know there is some slim possibility, after serving lengthy periods of their sentences...of being released into the community and contributing to society, provided that their behaviour while incarcerated makes them deserving of such a privilege.

We understand the trauma that victims' loved ones face when an offender is eligible for parole, but we cannot support legislation that will do more harm than good. We must take into consideration the fact that this legislation proposes a solution that is likely to be deemed unconstitutional.

We believe that our justice system should be structured for the best possible outcomes, and this particular bill would not achieve that.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in strong support of Bill C-266, introduced by my friend, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. This is legislation that seeks to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to provide a judge with the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period from the current 25 years to up to 40 years for individuals who are convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering the same victim.

Before discussing the merits of the bill, let me just note that the bill was introduced by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman in the last Parliament and carried forth by the former member for North Okanagan—Shuswap when the hon. member was appointed parliamentary secretary. It is a bill that passed second reading. It is a bill that was carefully studied at the justice committee. It is a bill that enjoyed the support of both Liberal and Conservative MPs, and it is a bill that simply because of timing did not make it through the last Parliament.

First degree murder is the most serious offence in the Criminal Code. That is why individuals who are convicted of this offence are subject to an automatic sentence of life and are also subject to a parole ineligibility period of at least 25 years.

However, as I noted in the question that I posed to the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, not all murders are equal. There are some murders that are so heinous, so sadistic, so violent, that they fall into a category unto themselves. That is the object of this piece of legislation. It is directed at those offenders, those individuals who have committed such a heinous crime and whose character is so irredeemable that for all intents and purposes, the only thing that can be done with them is to separate them from society for the rest of their lives.

My friend, the hon. member for Victoria, referred to the faint hope clause. He talked in his speech about the issues around offenders losing hope. Simply put, these offenders have no hope. They have no hope of ever seeing the light of day. However, if they are sentenced to life with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years, unless they are classified as a dangerous offender—a category that has a high threshold and is rarely applied—they would be eligible for parole even though, for all intents and purposes, those applications are dead on arrival.

That has a profound impact on victims. When the bill in the previous Parliament was studied, there was compelling evidence from victims' families, who are also victims. One was from Susan Ashley, whose sister, Linda Bright, was abducted, raped and murdered when she was 16 years old in 1978 by one Donald Armstrong. As Ashley said before the committee, when Mr. Armstrong was sentenced, the family was assured that they would never have to see or hear from him again, but in the end they did have to hear and see him again, because he applied for parole.

Ms. Ashley spoke of the betrayal, horror and the pain her family went through having to prepare for and then observe the parole hearing. Of course, Armstrong was never issued parole. People of Armstrong's ilk are never issued parole. Nonetheless, Ms. Ashley and her family had to go through the process. Theoretically, they could be required to go through the process again and again. Is that just? Is that fair? Is that compassionate? It is not.

My friend from Victoria raised issues about section 12 of the charter. There is precedent for this legislation in the way of Bill C-48, which provides for consecutive sentencing for individuals who are convicted of multiple murders. It has been applied on a number of occasions in courts across Canada since its passage. Some of the horrific cases in which it has been applied include the case of Douglas Garland in my province of Alberta, and of Derek Saretzky, another horrific Alberta case.

About the only thing just that came out of those horrific trials was the fact that those individuals were put away for the rest of their lives, and the victims' families had the assurance that they would never have to go through the process of a parole hearing to relive the horrors of what the likes of Saretzky and Garland did to their loved ones.

While there is consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers, what we do not have is a regime that can provide appropriate discretion in appropriate cases by judges to hold those most particularly evil killers accountable and spare families unnecessary parole hearings.

One perfect example of that is in relation to Tori Stafford's killer. He was 28 years old when he was convicted. That means he will be eligible for parole at the age of 53. Make no mistake, when Justice Heeney sentenced him to life without eligibility of parole for 25 years, he characterized that individual as a “monster”. He is not going to see the light of day, but he will be entitled to a parole hearing at the age of 53 and then every two years thereafter. If he lives until the age of 80, Tori's family could be subject to 14 or 15 parole hearings. How is that fair, how is that just and how is that compassionate? It is not.

The law needs to be changed, and Bill C-266 would change the law in the right direction for victims.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the initiative of my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on Bill C-266. As members have heard, the bill proposes to increase the period of parole ineligibility from 25 years to up to 40 years for those convicted of heinous crimes such as abduction, sexual assault and murder.

I want to start by saying that I am not here to criticize at all the good faith of the member for this initiative coming forward. Again, this is above politics. I respect entirely his passionate commitment to victims and his not wishing through the parole process to re-victimize the people who have suffered such trauma from these heinous crimes. I therefore respect entirely the initiative and the intention behind it.

On the other hand, there are some significant problems with this initiative. It would do more harm than good, for reasons that I will describe.

My primary motivation for taking this position is that the security of prison workers is at issue. The proposed legislation could further remove the incentive for inmates to behave while incarcerated. This poses serious risks to prison workers and other inmates. The workers who look after our incarcerated population often put themselves in harm's way to do so and they are entitled to a safe workplace. For that reason alone, we cannot support the bill.

Second, as I insinuated in my earlier question for the member, lawyers whom we have consulted have serious concerns about the constitutionality of the bill. First, here is a little history. In 2010, to my surprise, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted to abolish what has been called the faint hope clause. That provided an opportunity for a hearing 15 years into a 25-year sentence. At that time, the NDP opposed what was then Bill S-6 in an effort to keep the faint hope clause alive. As previously mentioned, the rationale was to keep security personnel safe in our institutions.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's proposal would further disincentivize good behaviour in correctional facilities, with the potential of increasing violence toward other inmates and correctional workers. While I am sure that was not the intent whatsoever, this aspect is worthy of our consideration and discussion. Unfortunately, Bill C-266 may present adverse safety concerns.

Providing even a glimmer of hope for parole provides incentives for good behaviour. It reduces the prospect of violence toward other inmates and correctional workers. The bill would remove any foreseeable chance of release for those convicted of serious crimes for up to an additional 15 years, thereby further reducing the rate of rehabilitation.

If someone in prison is serving a life sentence and cannot be eligible for parole until he or she has served up to 40 years, arguably that person has nothing to lose by committing violence in prison. It can create quite a difficult situation for everyone involved. The rationale for the faint hope clause was that it incentivizes offenders to participate in programming and work toward their rehabilitation, which leads to reduced violence and better behaviour toward other inmates and correctional workers.

I do not think this is simply any kind of tough-on-crime initiative. I think it truly is, in spirit, as I said initially, a bill that is trying to look after the victims who do not want to be re-traumatized. I respect that motivation entirely.

In our current system, offenders can apply for parole two years after they are initially denied parole. After that two-year period, they are eligible to reapply after five years. I understand that victims' families are under duress when the convicted individuals have a parole hearing, but we must not forget the safety of those prison workers and other inmates who are exposed to these individuals every single day.

A 2010 internal study by the Department of Justice found that this was the case, that those with nothing left to lose are more likely to resort to violence. That was confirmed in that study, which was discussed in a 2011 article in The Globe and Mail by Dean Beeby. He said, “A key, taxpayer-funded study supporting the faint hope clause never entered that debate because it was not released by the Justice Department.” It came out under the Access to Information Act.

The June 2010 report looked at whether the faint hope clause was working. It concluded that it worked well. The Globe states:

“Overall, the analysis indicates that the faint hope clause is not a free pass for individuals convicted of murder,” says the study....

“Those granted reduced time under faint hope do better in the community than other offenders. Lower recidivism rates from faint hope offenders suggest that decisions to release early are based on fairly accurate assessments of an offender's risk to reoffend.”

There are a couple of obvious points. The Parole Board points out on its website that a life sentence means life. Lifers will never again enjoy total freedom. As well, it is important to note that seven out of 10 offenders are denied parole at their first parole review date. The board has absolute discretion to keep them back if there is a concern. The foremost consideration is the safety of the public. Most offenders released on parole successfully complete their sentences without committing new offences.

In 2013-14, 99% of federal day parole periods and 97% of federal full parole periods were successfully completed by offenders without reoffending. The evidence, it seems to me, is incontrovertible that a gradual, controlled and supervised release is the most effective way of ensuring public safety. That applies to the serious offences we are talking about in this bill as well.

I found it staggering that offenders who were released at the end of their long sentences were four times more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole. In other words, it appears that the system, which can easily be criticized like every other institution, is actually working well in this particular context.

Extending parole eligibility beyond the current possible maximum of 25 years may have been possible sometimes in certain situations in the past, but the faint hope clause is no longer there to help mitigate any increase in parole eligibility since Bill S-6 was passed by Conservatives and Liberals in 2010.

I know I am running out of time, but the other point I wanted to make is that there is a concern about the constitutionality of having to wait up to 40 years. I have made the point about safety, but there is also the notion that lawyer Michael Spratt of Ottawa has put forward, which is that by extending it up to 40 years there is a large chance that the bill would be challenged as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He also points out that the practical result would be that people would no longer plead guilty because of the fear of that. They would end up finding themselves in the justice system for longer, and the courts would be even more clogged than they are now. The member described how he arrived at the arbitrary period of 40 years. However, it is so arbitrary that I cannot believe a court would find that compelling.

The Canadian Bar Association's criminal law section likewise does not believe that Canadians would benefit from a system where individuals are effectively condemned to spend their entire lives behind bars, with no hope of ever being released.

In conclusion, the introduction of Bill C-266 would, like the abolishment of the faint hope clause and the introduction of consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, remove incentives for good behaviour in correctional facilities, thwart rehabilitation efforts and put the lives of our correctional workers in greater jeopardy. Therefore, the NDP cannot support this provision.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility.

The objective of the bill is to protect victims and alleviate their re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications in which they may need to participate. The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of their loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances.

As currently drafted, Bill C-266 proposes to modify section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to effect two changes. First, it would make it mandatory for a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period of not less than 25 years for all offenders convicted of the following offences committed as part of the same event or series of events and in respect of the same victim: kidnapping and abduction-related offences; sexual offences; and murder, irrespective of whether it is in the first or second degree.

Second, the bill would provide judicial discretion to set the period of parole ineligibility between 25 and 40 years for the same small subset of offenders who, given the severity of their crimes committed, are truly unlikely to obtain parole in any event.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, including Bills C-478 and C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not get any further than that.

Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was found guilty to be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

Former Bill C-478 was later reintroduced as Bill C-587 by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and essentially proposed the same legislative amendments as Bill C-266, except for slight wording differences.

Ultimately, former Bill C-587 was adopted by the justice committee, without amendment, and had commenced third reading debate in the House, but did not proceed further because of the dissolution of Parliament for the 2015 federal election.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all of hon. members of the House can agree that alleviating the trauma, emotional suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution, and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal polices of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime.

Once victims are registered with the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service Canada, they can choose to receive information on the offender, including but not limited to: the sentence start date and length; and the offender's eligibility and review dates for unescorted temporary absences, parole or statutory release.

Upon further request, additional information could be provided to a victim, including: the date of any Parole Board of Canada hearing and the reason why an offender waived a hearing, if one was given; and whether the offender has appealed the decision of the Parole Board not to grant a release and the outcome of that appeal.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to pause here to highlight Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, which is proposing other legislative changes to better support victims of crime.

Currently, victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing. However, if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to a recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said and may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

The laws and policies that have been put forward were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them. This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group; while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings in order to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and to feel empowered by having their voice heard.

In fact, on March 9, 2015, officials testifying on behalf of the Parole Board of Canada indicated during their testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on former Bill C-587 that every victim is different and that the Parole Board of Canada also has victims who are interested in attending parole hearings.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves if the proposed amendments in Bill C-266 are the most effective way of supporting the needs of victims affected by these brutal crimes.

I also wonder, despite the bill's laudable intentions, whether some victims might feel negatively impacted by legislative changes designed to reduce the number of parole hearings they may choose to attend.

I am certain all hon. members would agree that a thorough debate on the impacts of Bill C-266's proposed changes requires consideration of these questions. Also, I would be interested to hear the views of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on these points.

It is clear that there are various ways of supporting victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-266 present one avenue for bettering the experience of victims at the very end of the spectrum of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to achieve a fair, effective, just and compassionate criminal justice system for all involved. For these reasons, I will be closely monitoring the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

moved that Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-266, an act respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons. This bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This bill has been before the House before. To quote one of my previous speeches in the House, from 2014, in this bill I want to empower our courts “with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and often most vulnerable Canadians from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years.”

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

Let us be perfectly clear. Bill C-266 is not about mandatory minimum sentencing. The bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights. It is based on the discretion of the presiding judge through a recommendation to the jury. A judge could set parole ineligibility of between 25 and 40 years. It would not be prescribed where in there it would fall. The judge would have the discretionary power to make it anywhere from 25 years of parole ineligibility to 40 years.

This legislation is modelled after a bill brought forward in a previous Parliament, Bill C-48, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act, which we are seeing in use today at the McArthur trial as well as for the murderer who committed the mosque massacre in Quebec. That piece of legislation affords judges the opportunity to make the parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers consecutive rather than concurrent. Most of those convicted of these multiple murders or these heinous crimes of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering our loved ones never get parole. Therefore, why do we continue to put families through unnecessary Parole Board hearings? There is absolutely no need to re-victimize those families.

As I mentioned, I brought the bill forward in a previous Parliament. It was introduced on February 27, 2013, as Bill C-478. The bill made it as far as the committee stage, when I was appointed parliamentary secretary, so I had to withdraw the bill. Colin Mayes, our former colleague from B.C., then picked it up as Bill C-587. That bill made it through committee and came back to the House at report stage and third reading on June 2, 2015. Of course, it never made it to the final vote before the House recessed and the election took place.

This legislation would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, as I have previously said. Increasing parole ineligibility from 25 years to 40 years would save families from having to go through the process of attending unnecessary Parole Board hearings and making victim impact statements, which are traumatic, to say the least, and heart-wrenching for those families. The bill would eliminate eight unnecessary Parole Board hearings families would have to attend.

Sadistic murderers often apply for parole every two years, starting at year 23, for the sole purpose of toying with the families, of revictimizing them and making them relive the gruesome killings that were committed.

The bill would change a number of subsections under section 745. It would be based upon the recommendation of a jury. The bill says that a judge would ask a jury at the time of sentencing if it wished “to make any recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release on parole”. When the jury was passing judgment, it could also recommend what the parole ineligibility could be. The judge would have discretion as to whether to accept that, and he or she could set it at a level he or she found appropriate. Judges on the board, when determining parole ineligibility, must have regard for “the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission”.

Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of people on the legislation, along with Colin Mayes, the former member of Parliament from B.C. In the other place, Senator Boisvenu was a big help on this over the years. He founded an organization called Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association. This is something that he is incredibly passionate about.

Sharon Rosenfeldt's son Daryn was murdered by the notorious Clifford Olson and her organization is Victims of Violence. Susan Ashley is the sister of Linda Bright, who was killed by Donald Armstrong. Terri Prioriello's sister Darlene, also called Dolly, was murdered by David James Dobson. The organization Canadian Parents of Murdered Children has provided input over the years. This goes back some time.

I was interested in doing something for families. At the end of 2009-10, members will remember the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Tori Stafford. Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and prosecuted in 2010 and Michael Rafferty in 2012. During that time, while my heart was breaking listening to the Tori Stafford story, Clifford Olson was dying from cancer in prison and Sharon Rosenfeldt talked on the radio about how this killer had impacted her family over the years. He sent letters describing how he murdered her son Daryn. Because of that type of sadistic behaviour, tormenting families and using Parole Board hearings to feed his own sick appetite, it became clear to me that we needed to do something for families.

I knew full well that both murderers of Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic, will be applying for parole in the year 2023 after the murder in 2009. I think all Canadians would consider it unacceptable that families have to go through this ongoing saga of Parole Board hearing after Parole Board hearing.

We need to make sure the legislation targets the most depraved of society, the sadistic murderers out there who often prey on children and the most vulnerable, those who abduct, sexually assault and murder, often in a very gruesome manner. We are talking about people like Robert Pickton, Russell Williams, Michael Rafferty, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, David James Dobson, Donald Armstrong, Luka Magnotta and we are watching the McArthur case unfold now in Toronto. This would apply to those individuals, particularly those who do not get consecutive life sentences. They could be given a 40-year sentence before they could apply for parole.

It is important that we talk about some of these families, like the family of Linda Bright, who was just 16 when she was abducted by Donald Armstrong in Kingston back in 1978. He has applied for parole numerous times. I have been talking to Susan Ashley, Linda's sister, and she said about the Parole Board hearings in the past, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my Mom and Dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”.

Linda's mother, Margaret, said during her victim impact statement, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I have had to do in the last twenty years.”

Gary Rosenfeldt, who was Johnsrude's stepfather, has now passed away. His wife is Sharon Rosenfeldt. He said publicly, after going through a number of Parole Board hearings in 2006 and 2010, and even back in 1997, when there was still the faint hope clause, “What's really horrendous about this is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives, and this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”

It should be noted that Clifford Olson died in prison. He was never paroled. These individuals do not get parole.

Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson in 1982. He is at the Bath Institution. Darlene's sister Terri has said this about having to go through these painful, repetitive and unnecessary Parole Board hearings: “Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.” Unfortunately, that goes on.

We have had the Library of Parliament research how these murderers have been treated in prison and whether or not they have ever received parole. The best we can find is that some of them have been given day parole or temporary leave. They have never, ever been released back into the public on full parole. They are serving life sentences, and they will continue to do that.

A lot of people wonder how I came up with the 15 extra years in the 25 plus 15. Murder is 25 years without parole, abduction is a maximum of 10 years without parole, and sexual assault is a maximum of 4.6 years without parole. Added together, we get 40 years.

Let us be clear that I am not saying we are setting mandatory minimums, taking it up to 40 years. It is anywhere in between. The judge and the jury decide where the parole and eligibility should be set. It could be 25 years, 30 years, 35 years or 40 years. It is up to the judge and the jury to make those decisions. By respecting the independence of the court we are in compliance with chapter 12 of the charter.

We have seen this type of approach being taken with previous legislation. This judicial discretion is incredibly important, because the judge will take that recommendation, along with the regard he has to have for the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission. If the jury chooses, it can provide input as well.

I am looking forward to hearing the position of the government on this, as well as that of the NDP, but I am appealing to all members of the House to support the bill.

It should be noted that in the previous Parliament, all Liberals voted yes at second reading for this legislation. Many of them sit on the benches today, and are still here.

I want to make sure people understand that these depraved murderers, these brutal and sadistic members of society, will never be released back into society. They are not going to be released. The Parole Board of Canada continues to hold them in institutions, knowing they are dangerous offenders who potentially could reoffend, because so often they are psychopaths. Therefore, let us ensure we are not revictimizing those families by having them go to all these unnecessary Parole Board hearings and relive the murder and brutal details of how their loved ones were killed, all to the gratification of those incarcerated psychopaths.

I ask that everyone support this legislation. Let us get it to committee and let us hear from the victims organizations, the families who have been impacted and the families who are calling for this. Let us give them some peace. Let us respect their wishes and their lives so they do not have to go on and on living this nightmare.

As Yvonne Harvey of the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children said, “Although I have not personally faced the ordeal of a parole hearing, I have spoken to many individuals who have. I am certain that the primary intent of this bill, to spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings, would be most welcomed.”

[David Groves]

It's the last one, as far as I know.

Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to increasing parole ineligibility, seeks to amend the Criminal Code so that a person who has been convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering someone is ineligible for parole for at least 25 and at most 40 years. This would raise the period of parole ineligibility for individuals who commit this pattern of crimes from where it sits now.

Bill C-229, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts with regard to life sentences would, among other things, have amended the Criminal Code to make parole entirely unavailable for individuals who are convicted of certain types of crime. This would have included individuals who are convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering someone. Bill C-229 was considered by the House and defeated at second reading on September 21, 2016.

To summarize, Bill C-266 would extend the period of parole ineligibility that would apply to someone convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder. Bill C-229, among other things, would have prevented someone who is convicted of sexual assault and murder or abduction and murder in respect of a single individual from parole eligibility entirely.

The reason I'm flagging these two is for the same reason that I've flagged others today: it's because private members' items must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament. There's a possibility, then, a question that Bill C-266 concerns a question substantially similar to the question contained in Bill C-229, on which the House has already voted. Both would reduce parole eligibility for a certain type of offender.

There are, however, differences. Bill C-229 would have covered a much broader array of crimes and would have removed parole eligibility entirely. Bill C-266 is more targeted to a specific type of crime and would provide for an extended period of ineligibility to be determined at the discretion of a judge.

The mechanisms are different in that one would have been automatic and would have lasted for life, while the other is an extension that has some flexibility within it at the discretion of the judge, after considering submissions from a jury, if they would like to make those submissions.

[The Chair]

Bill C-266 remains.

[The Chair]

Right. So Bills C-331, C-419, C-420, C-421 and C-266 remain.

Does everyone follow?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Bills C-331, C-419, C-420, C-421 and C-266.

Opposition Motion—Justice

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues on the Conservative benches today for their interventions on this motion. It is incredibly disappointing that we even had to bring this motion forward, because the Liberals will not do the right thing.

It was so disconcerting to sit here all day and listen to Liberal after Liberal get up to feign their condolences and so-called sympathies for the family, but then defend the decision by the public safety minister not to intervene in this situation or rectify a decision that was callous and, in my opinion, broke the law under the Victims Bill of Rights. They really demonstrated to Canadians that they would rather advocate for the convicted, that they would rather stand up for the criminal, that they would rather hug the thug than show compassion and reason toward the family members who have suffered from these terrible, brutal murders. These victims have rights and they deserve respect, compassion, understanding and information from the Government of Canada. Some of the arguments that have been presented today are just ludicrous. For the Liberals to continue to try to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric, talking points and so-called statistics does not right the wrong. It does not justify this decision.

We have to look at the situation here. The court system has passed judgment. Justice needs to be served now. Terri-Lynne McClintic was given a life sentence without parole for 25 years, and all the research that I have done on these very sadistic, deranged murderers such as Terri-Lynne McClintic is that they never do get parole. They serve out their life sentences as incarcerated convicts.

I have been in contact with families over the years who have had to deal with the loss of loved ones because of convicted killers like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Robert Pickton. These people will never make parole. The parole boards will never grant them the opportunity to re-enter society. Therefore, this idea that we are going to move this convicted murderer, this child killer, Terri-Lynne McClintic, into a minimum security facility to make sure she is properly rehabilitated many years before she ever will even stand a chance of standing before a parole board for a hearing is ridiculous. She needs to serve her time. Everything I have seen in the news is that she has not been a model prisoner. This is a lady who continues to brag about how she killed Tori Stafford. This is a lady who has assaulted and stomped on other inmates she is incarcerated with.

Some people in this chamber, such as the NDP and the Liberals, talk about the poor family going through this. I can tell them that if they read the Facebook page of Rodney Stafford, they would see that he has been posting about this ridiculous idea that Terri-Lynne McClintic deserved to go to a healing lodge. He has helped organize a protest for Tori Stafford on November 2 here on the Hill. He wants all of us to go out there and promote it if the Liberals do not back down. He is giving an opportunity to the Minister of Public Safety to reverse this decision. He has given him a month to change course here.

We are seeing no leadership here from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety. For them to suggest that we review the situation and the decisions made by Correctional Service Canada is ridiculous. When there is public outrage like this, all he has to do is to follow the example set by our current Minister of Agriculture when he served as the solicitor general under Jean Chrétien back in 1998 when a similar situation occurred when a mass murderer was being transferred to a lower security prison. The public screamed in outrage and disgust over it.

He immediately, as the solicitor general, changed that decision. He intervened and showed leadership. What we are seeing here is passing the buck. The Minister of Public Safety is just pushing it off to the bureaucrats and saying, “You guys figure this out.” He is not taking any role whatsoever or accepting responsibility for what has happened. That, to me, is not accountability. It is not at all the role of government. If we look at our rules and procedures in our rule book, it clearly stipulates that accountability lies with the minister of each department, so the Minister of Public Safety has to face the music on this one, and we are not seeing that.

Of course, he calls this murder by Terri-Lynne McClintic her “bad practices”. I will tell members what bad practice is. First, it is his lack of leadership. Second, the Correctional Service of Canada did not respect the Victims Bill of Rights. The victim, in this case Rodney Stafford and his family, has the right to information about the goings-on of the accused, this being Terri-Lynne McClintic. He has the right to information through the entire judicial process as well as through the entire time she is serving her time for the crime. Here we are, nine months after the fact, before the public even found out that she was transferred to the healing lodge, a minimum security facility.

We are going to hear from the Liberals who say that we had healing lodges. Yes, I think minimum security facilities are necessary. I have in my riding Stony Mountain Institution. It has maximum security, it has minimum security and it has medium security. By far, most of the inmates are in the medium security facility. Only those who are in transition to be released back into the public and who have been model inmates get to go to minimum security.

If we tour minimum security, what used to be what we called the farm, the guards are not knocking on the door every hour. Inmates are allowed to wander the yards. The inmates actually live in an apartment-style complex, where they are expected to cook for themselves. They have to go to the store, and they are supposed to do a job while they are there, whether they are working in one of the trades they are teaching there or are going to school. That is what happens in minimum security. In medium security, the inmates get to mix during the day within their ranges, but in medium security, they are still behind a fence, they are behind a wall, and at night, they are behind bars in their cells.

What is happening here to Terri-Lynne McClintic is, as was pointed out by my colleague, more like living in a university dormitory than like actually being in jail. She does not deserve to be there, as a child murderer, as someone who has assaulted other inmates. All I hear is a lack of compassion and a lack of common sense and the defence of the convicted coming from the Liberal benches.

Other ministers of public safety have shown leadership on these files before and have reversed decisions. When Vic Toews was the minister of public safety and when Stockwell Day was public safety minister, they had similar situations happen, and they intervened and corrected the course of their departments.

The member for Winnipeg Centre got up and actually suggested that some of us over on this side were going to say to bring Terri-Lynne McClintic in here and hang her from the gallows. It is outrageous that a person would come in here and make that type of comment. That is egregious. He should apologize for that. I am a person who is very convicted in my morality. I am pro-life. I would never advocate for capital punishment in any way, shape or form. For him to accuse me or anyone else on this side of wanting that is something that he needs to be held accountable for, and I demand an apology from him.

I was incited by the murder of Tori Stafford. It broke my heart, so shortly after the murder, I brought forward a bill in 2010. I tabled it in this House, and it is actually up for second reading next month. It is Bill C-266, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. It is to make sure that those individuals who are incarcerated who have abducted, sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered their victims should not be allowed to reach parole eligibility for 40 years. Terri-Lynne McClintic is one of those persons. She should not be allowed to move around, have her sentence reduced, or apply for parole and re-victimize those families. We have to respect the families, and in this case, the Stafford family.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reintroduce the bill I introduced in the last session. It made it past second reading and was headed to committee when I was appointed parliamentary secretary. Therefore, it was dropped from the order of precedence and the bill died. It was subsequently picked up by our former colleague Colin Mayes, who then brought it forward.

The purpose of this bill is to increase parole ineligibility for the heinous criminals who kidnap, sexually assault, brutalize, and murder their victims. These are the Paul Bernardos, the Clifford Olsons, and the Robert Picktons of the world, the people who never get out of jail. Unfortunately, under the current Criminal Code provisions, they are eligible for parole at year 25, and they start making their applications at year 23. The families are revictimized when they have to go back and listen to these cases being told every two years after that point in time. Therefore, to respect those families and save them the heartache of reliving the loss of their loved one, who often was sexually assaulted, tortured, and killed, we want to give powers to the court to use its discretionary powers, either by jury or by judge, to increase that parole ineligibility to 40 years.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)