I'm here today because I understand that the committee has requested that officials provide an overview of Bill .
As the chair has indicated, I'm here with Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce MacGregor from the Office of the Judge Advocate General. After my presentation I will respond to any questions you may have with regard to the Criminal Code amendments set out in this bill, and Lieutenant-Colonel MacGregor will respond to any questions you may have with regard to the consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.
That being said, as a preliminary matter let me begin by saying--and as I'm sure you're aware--that the punishment for first- and second-degree murder in the Criminal Code is life imprisonment, with the possibility of applying for parole after a period of parole ineligibility determined under section 745 of the code. That period is 25 years from the time an offender is brought into custody for first-degree murder.
It's also 25 years for any second-degree murder where the murderer has previously been convicted either of another domestic murder or of an intentional killing under sections 4 and 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The parole ineligibility period for all other second-degree murderers is a minimum of 10 years.
That being said, sentencing judges are already authorized under the Criminal Code, under section 745.4, to set a parole ineligibility period for second-degree murderers that may range anywhere from 11 to 25 years. In making this decision, judges must have regard—and I'm quoting here from section 745.4—“...to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made...” by a jury.
In essence, the bill before you today proposes to amend the Criminal Code to authorize a judge to impose multiple periods of parole ineligibility on convicted multiple murderers, to account for each murder victim, and to use exactly the same criteria in making his or her decision in this regard.
Let me be more specific. Bill would amend section 745.5 and related provisions of the Criminal Code to authorize a sentencing judge to impose on an offender sentenced for more than one first- or second-degree murder, or any combination of first- and second-degree murders, a separate 25-year period of parole ineligibility for the second and for each subsequent murder.
As mentioned, in exercising this authority, the judge would be required to have regard to the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the murders, and any jury recommendation. In essence, we are proposing exactly the same criteria as appear in section 745.4 to ground this new authority; however, the sentencing judge would also be required to state orally and in writing the basis of any decision not to exercise the authority being proposed in Bill .
However, the key point is that these additional 25-year periods of parole ineligibility would run consecutively to the period of parole ineligibility imposed for the first murder. As I mentioned, that period will depend on whether it is a first- or second-degree murder and whether the judge has used the authority in section 745.4 to set the parole ineligibility period for the first murder at anywhere between 11 and 25 years.
The coming into force of Bill will occur on a date to be fixed by order in council. To ensure that jurisdictions are aware of the nature of this proposal, the Department of Justice will begin consultations with them as soon as this bill is passed into law.
That being said, we are now open to any questions that you may have on Bill C-48.
:
When we start asking DOJ officials what their policy slant is, that's the day we should switch roles. I'd take the security, though; I wouldn't mind being a DOJ person.
But I respect your answer on the policy question.
I have a question. It's back to the hypothetical. I think we're all trying to get our heads around the discretion that might be used. Double murder, same circumstances: that's clearly first degree. If the judge decides that on the first murder the person should not be eligible for parole for 25 years, how is he or she going to separate the second murder, which is the same? The person is automatically ineligible for parole for over 50 years in that situation. I don't know how he could use the discretion in one case and not the other.
You're saying that on the second murder he could say he's using his discretion and is granting parole eligibility and equating the two murders the same.... To me, the problem might be.... The discretion is there and that's good. I remark, by the way, that it isn't there in Bill . I wonder why it isn't, because we're dealing with a similar part of the code; that's faint hope and so on. That's one question, I guess.
Second, would we not be better off if we gave the judge a little more discretion on the number of years? In other words, a judge might look at those two instances and consider 25 years. He might be on the borderline as to whether he wants to go 50 years. He might very easily say 35, but we have this choice between the second-degree 10 and the first-degree 25.
You see on TV that in the American courts they can just pick a number out of the air and say, “You're not eligible for parole for 36 years”. In Canada, you can pick 10, you can pick 25, and, in the case of two murders, you can pick 50. But you can't pick between 25 and 50 in two first-degree murders, as far as I can tell. I wonder if it might be good to have a sliding scale. If you're going to give discretion, you should give it. You shouldn't say you have a choice between 25 and 50, or 75, or whatever the case.
In three-person murders, I think we get a little far afield. The choice between 25 and 75 is pretty large as well. But between 25 and 50 there might be a judge who thinks, “This guy is 40 and he should pay”. No question: each murder is equal in the eyes of the law in terms of the denunciation. But in a choice between 25 and 50, heaven knows, the judge might think that somebody might be able to rehabilitate themselves.
I'd like your comment about whether we should have something in between, and I'd also like a comment on Bill .
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here on supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, our government was elected on a promise to tackle crime. We've acted decisively on this promise in order to ensure the safety and security of our neighbourhoods and communities.
[Translation]
As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am determined to ensure that our justice system is in fact just.
[English]
We know that law-abiding Canadians want us to act. Our government believes, as we stated in the Speech from the Throne, that the law must protect everyone and that those who commit crimes must be held to account. Canadians want a system that delivers justice.
To achieve that goal, we have pursued a wide range of reforms to strengthen our criminal law. Our record speaks for itself.
We've passed legislation to establish mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes and toughen sentencing for dangerous criminals, and we've raised the age of protection from 14 to 16 years to better protect young people from adult sexual predators.
We've succeeded in eliminating the two-for-one credit for time spent in jail awaiting trial, a practice that disproportionately reduced prison sentences for some violent offenders. Police associations and victims groups, and indeed, all provinces and territories, have expressed their support for that legislation.
Our government has passed legislation to increase penalties for murders and reckless shootings connected to gangs and organized crime. Any murder connected to organized crime activity now will automatically be considered murder in the first degree and will be subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.
In addition, there are many pieces of proposed legislation that are currently before both Houses of Parliament, legislation that will strengthen the justice system to the benefit of law-abiding Canadians, with a particular emphasis on protecting children and showing respect and compassion for the victims of crime.
I would mention that none of this would have been possible without the invaluable assistance, advice, and commitment we have received from the employees of the Department of Justice. I take this opportunity to thank them for all their dedication and hard work.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, our commitment to protect Canadians remains stronger than ever.
[English]
For example, most recently I was proud to announce our legislation to protect Canadians from property crime and auto theft, which just recently received royal assent, as you know. The Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act will help crack down on property crime, including auto theft and trafficking in property that is obtained by crime. Auto theft has a huge impact on Canadians and threatens the safety of our communities.
This legislation will help disrupt criminal enterprises and send a clear message to gangs and organized crime that if you engage in auto theft, there will be serious consequences. Once this new law comes into force, law enforcement and courts will have better tools to tackle auto theft and the entire range of activities involved in the trafficking of all types of stolen or fraudulently obtained property.
Another part of our fight against organized crime, Mr. Chairman, can be found in the new set of regulations we enacted to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to fight these sophisticated criminal activities. These new regulations identify as serious offences such organized crime activities as illegal gambling and specific prostitution- and drug-related crimes.
The fact that an offence is committed by a criminal organization makes it a serious crime. These regulations will help ensure that police and prosecutors can make full use of the tools in the Criminal Code that are specifically targeted at tackling organized crime, and that are better able to respond to organized crime and ensure that penalties are proportionate to the increased threat to public safety that organized crime activities present.
Mr. Chairman, we also welcomed this year the coming into force of the legislation to fight identity theft, which is a fast-growing crime in North America, as you know. Our new law provides police and justice officials with important new tools, including three new Criminal Code offences targeting the early stages of identity theft or identity-related crime: obtaining and possessing identity information, trafficking in identity information, and unlawfully possessing or trafficking in government-issued identity documents. All of these offences are subject to a five-year maximum prison sentence.
Our government believes Canadians are entitled to have their identities and other valuable information protected to the highest degree possible. Now they have greater protection against identity theft, and police are better equipped to stop these crimes before they are committed.
We're also standing up for the victims of white-collar crimes, which can have a devastating effect on individuals and communities. Our government has listened to the concerns of victims of fraud, and we are helping them to seek restitution and ensure their voices are heard in sentencing those who have harmed them so profoundly.
To that end, as you know, we have introduced legislation that cracks down on white-collar crime and fraud and increases justice for victims. Our legislation would make jail time mandatory: at least two years for fraud over $1 million. It would toughen sentences further by adding aggravating factors that the courts can consider.
Mr. Chairman, in the Speech from the Throne, we paid particular attention to the need to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children. Sexual exploitation of children causes irreparable harm, and our government is committed to helping prevent sexual offences against children by ensuring that adult sexual predators receive sentences that reflect the extreme seriousness of their crime.
We have proposed legislation that would establish mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences, such as luring, sexual assault, and aggravated assault. As a result, conditional sentences, including house arrest, would no longer be available for any of these offences. The proposed legislation would also increase mandatory prison sentences for seven sexual offences involving child victims, such as possessing and accessing child pornography, and sexual exploitation.
Mr. Chairman, the creation and distribution of child pornography are appalling crimes in which children are brutally victimized over and over again. Our government has recently proposed a mandatory reporting regime across Canada that will require suppliers of Internet services to report information about Internet child pornography. This will strengthen our ability to protect our children from sexual predators and help police rescue these young victims and prosecute the criminals responsible.
Our government has also shown its concern for the victims of multiple murderers and their families. We firmly believe that families of murder victims should not be made to feel that the life of their loved one doesn't count.
This is why I tabled a bill in October that will permit judges to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murderers, thus putting to an end sentencing discounts for these horrible crimes. While there can only be one life sentence for an offender who commits more than one murder, the parole ineligibility period—25 years in the case of a first-degree murder—could be imposed consecutively for each subsequent murder.
In addition, we will continue to seek the elimination of the faint hope clause from the Criminal Code. By saying no to early parole for murders, our government hopes to spare families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive these unspeakable losses over and over again.
I was saddened earlier this month when there were several unnecessary amendments to this important piece of legislation, including the replacement of the short title of the bill. As a result of these unnecessary amendments, Bill will be delayed, and I'm disappointed to report to victims that this is not already the law of this country. But, again, we remain committed.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the honourable members for the work they do. I plead with them not to make unnecessary amendments to bills that only slow down bills for which there is widespread support and consensus among the people of this country.
We remain committed to helping victims of crime. Through the federal victims strategy, we committed $52 million over four years, starting on April 1, 2007, for a package of program services and funding to help the federal government and the provinces and territories respond to the needs of victims. This, of course, includes the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.
I was very pleased recently to announce that the Government of Canada would provide over $5 million over the next five years to support the development of child advocacy centres across Canada. I visited the one in St. Catharines, Ontario, which is, of course, next door to my constituency, and I couldn't help but be impressed by the work being done there. It's being done in a number of municipalities across Canada, and this is something that we all must encourage.
Our government remains committed to supporting victims of crime through existing programs, and we'll continue to work with stakeholders to create new initiatives, such as the child advocacy centres I just mentioned. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, victims of crime have indicated that their primary unmet need is access to information about the justice system and the services available to them.
To help meet this need, the Government of Canada is reaching out to victims of crime through the recent Victims Matter campaign to raise awareness and let victims know what resources are available to them. The funding for this campaign comes from a separate Treasury Board allotment for government advertising for the fiscal year 2010-11. This investment is above and beyond the funds already allocated to the victims fund.
The campaign's goal is to increase awareness and uptake of the services and programs available to victims of crime and therefore, by extension, increase the use of the victims fund. The results of the campaign so far are showing that we are reaching Canadians and raising awareness. As of November 27, the Victims Matter website had received more than 1.1 million hits, with close to 40,000 visitors averaging a length of visit of more than five minutes, which suggests that visitors are finding plenty of content worth reading.
Mr. Chairman, safety and security are priorities for our government, and we will not apologize for our commitment to victims and law-abiding citizens.
[Translation]
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and committee members for the important work you are doing.
[English]
The Department of Justice is instrumental in the government's work to respond to the needs of Canadians. The funding that we have received has brought results, and I will do my utmost to ensure these funds continue to be spent wisely and in the service of Canadians.
We will continue to deliver on our promise to tackle crime and stand up for victims. We will continue to listen to the views of Canadians on how we can improve our criminal justice system and make all our communities safe.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to any questions you may have.
Thank you, Minister and officials.
I want to draw my question from pages 170 through 181 of the supplementary estimates. I have some specific questions.
In passing, though, I can't help but give a bit of a remark back to you, Minister, that the government has been in power close to five years. To blame everything on the Liberal-dominated Senate...oh, wait a minute, that's not the case anymore. Or there's the changing of short titles that go way beyond the actual reach and even the effect of legislation that is a little mysterious and a little hyperbolic.
But let's not get caught up in political debate. Let's get down to the figures. You've been in office five years. You are now starting to appropriate money for some of your grand visions.
If you look at page 180, I appreciate, as a preface to the specific questions on expenses, that you had a separate allocation from the Treasury Board with respect to a campaign regarding victims of crime. I appreciate that it is separate, but within these figures can you tell me specifically with regard to the third item, “Funding to support victim services...to increase national support for missing persons investigations” and for the item two lines down, “Funding for increased support for victims of crime...for the creation and enhancement of the Child Advocacy Centres” that you refer to--those two sums are $2.5 million and $1.3 million--whether any of those sums allocated or appropriated are for advertising, for publicity, for promotion? That would be one question.
The second question, because I want to give you a lot of time to answer, Minister and Deputy Minister, is that I've been at Canadian Bar Association meetings at which you've made it very clear that transfers to provinces regarding legal aid are just that--transfers to provinces. Almost across the country, your fallback position is that you can do nothing with what provinces do with their allocation generally with respect to ensuring there's adequate legal aid in the provinces.
I think that's a constitutionally sound argument, Mr. Minister, but in this item under transfers, if I understand it correctly, you have transferred or taken a transfer of $2 million “to provide immigration and refugee legal aid funding for provinces and territories”. It seems to be exactly what you say that you do not do as a government, which is to transfer money directly to provinces for specific legal aid services.
I wonder if that's a breakthrough. I wonder if it's a good thing. I wonder if it's something that you're mandated to do as government under Citizenship and Immigration. I just wonder what it is, why it's such a large sum and, finally, why it's being transferred from Citizenship and Immigration. Did they do it before and cover it in their budget? Did they not do it before? Is this something new?
Those are three general expenditure questions, Minister.
:
--has already been passed by the Senate. If you make minor amendments to it, if you're uptight about the name of the bill, it means the matter will then have to go back to the Senate. That's the system of government we have.
So when I'm trying to explain to victims that there is a general consensus that we want to get rid of the faint hope clause, I have to tell them we have a couple of amendments now at the House of Commons that will delay the bill. That's the point I've made.
With respect to the increases, the money for advertising comes from separate funds. You mentioned, among other things, the child advocacy centres. That money is available for groups across Canada to make applications to put together a child advocacy centre, or to assist with one that may already be up and running. That's what the money goes for. In addition, the money to support victim services against violence in aboriginal communities, again is new money that has been announced to assist in the pursuit of those who have victimized aboriginal women.
That being said, it's important to get that message out. That's not what this money is being used for, but I mentioned the education and the advertisements we're doing because we want victims and individuals to take up these programs and to become aware of what they are referring to.
Now, with respect to legal aid, yes, there are transfers to legal aid with respect to criminal...and, as you pointed out, with respect to the refugee system. Yes, we do that. Most of the questions that have been directed towards me with respect to the constitutional separation or the arrangements that have been made with the provinces and territories relate to civil legal aid.
As I indicated to them, prior to 1995 when I was an MP here in the early 1990s and I was the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, I of course watched and looked each year to ensure that money was being transferred from the federal government for the purposes of civil legal aid. This would help people, for instance, on matrimonial disputes.
Now, in 1995—I was not a part of that, as I'm sure you're aware—it was rolled over into the Canada social transfer. So what I've indicated when I have been at the Canadian Bar Association and other forums, is that I've said yes, I watch the budget every year and am pleased that each year the Canada social transfer has been increased, because I know, then, that the opportunity therefore exists for provinces to assist in the area of civil legal aid and indeed other worthwhile projects.
But it is sometimes put to me why I don't go back to having a line item, and as you could probably guess, a number of provincial jurisdictions aren't welcoming that and encouraging us in that direction.
I didn't mention too much about the budget. Believe it or not, Monsieur Ménard, when I've been here in the past over the last four years, most of the questions had nothing to do with the budget.
Mr. Comartin, you were an exception to that, but most of the questions are about general policy or specific issues that relate to the justice portfolio.
I'll give you an example that is specific to victims. The whole area of child advocacy centres, which, as I indicated, I made an announcement about three weeks ago, is part of the supplementary estimates.
I feel very strongly about that, because these child advocacy centres are set up to assist children who have been victimized, children who will be witnesses within the criminal justice system. What the centres do is provide a safe, reassuring setting for children to make their case and so prepare them for either the questioning or the possible court course that will follow. I feel very strongly about it. As I indicated to you, I had a first-hand look at what they were doing in St. Catharines, Ontario, which is next door to my constituency. I was very impressed by that.
So yes, that is directly in the supplementary estimates, as is the support for victims services as they relate to aboriginal Canadians. You will know there was an allocation for that in the last federal budget, which is reflected in the supplementary estimates as well.
So you're quite correct that greater funds are being allocated for victims in this country within the supplementary estimates. Again, that's appropriate, but of course that goes hand-in-hand with the programs that I've already indicated to you. I talked to you about the victims fund that we initiated in 2007 and that of course will continue for this year as well.