SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 118 - Oct/26/22

Oct/26/22 4:50:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the irony today, as we are now debating Bill C-9, is that we see the government invoking closure when this legislation could have already been in place. Had we not had an unnecessary pandemic election, it most certainly would have been in place. While the minister is here, I want to ask a question with respect to our justice system and the recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. There are many victims and their families who have spoken out about the need to respond to the ruling that values each and every life that is taken when there is a case of mass murder in Canada. These cases are rare, but they do happen. The families of victims have said they do not want to go through the burden and retraumatization that is involved with parole hearings. Sharlene Bosma appeared at our justice committee and spoke eloquently about how she was grateful that her daughter would not have to attend parole hearings to keep her father's killer behind bars, where he belongs, having killed three individuals. I would ask the minister if he has consulted with the families of victims on a possible government response to this very unfortunate ruling.

209 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 118 - Oct/26/22

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:52:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal, and my critic, for his question. It is an important one. Obviously, our hearts go out to the Bosmas, to the victims of the Quebec City mosque massacre and others who have been impacted by this ruling by the Supreme Court. I remind the hon. member that, as the Attorney General, we defended the previous legislation in front of the Supreme Court, allowing judges the discretion to have consecutive sentences and building our argument on that. That argument was rejected. It is not that the sentencing was changed; these people are still serving consecutive sentences, but what the court has added is that there is a possibility of parole at various points in time. I would remind the House that eligibility for parole is not the same as parole. A life sentence is a long time, and a parole hearing, yes, is still there. I know that has a negative impact on the families if they choose to come and testify again. It was a nine to nothing decision, which was a serious statement by the Supreme Court of Canada. We will work with victims to support them. We have recently appointed a new ombudsperson to help, although the office remained open during the period of time we were searching to fill that role, and I think we can move forward in supporting victims, but recognizing the very clear ruling of the Supreme Court.

244 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 118 - Oct/26/22

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Oct/26/22 4:59:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to pick up on what my colleague from Fundy Royal asked the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. He was talking about the decision with respect to parole ineligibility and whether that should be consecutive or concurrent at 25 years. The Minister of Justice, from what I could surmise, was essentially saying that the government is not going to be introducing legislation to respond to that court decision. That is disappointing. Would the Minister of Justice then support legislation to perhaps extend the time between parole hearings? This is something people like Ms. Bosma have talked about as victimizing or revictimizing them in the process. Will the Minister of Justice support extending the period between parole hearings from two years for those serving life in prison to, perhaps, five years?

153 words

All Topics