Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I hadn’t intended to intervene in the debate, and I have immense respect for Senator Carignan’s thoughtfulness in relation to matters related to the criminal law, but I do want to raise two observations.

One, if the nature of this is to try to increase the mandatory minimum for certain quite serious crimes, it seems a bit unusual to do it by ratcheting up the nature of the offence, particularly when one does that with respect to first-degree murder.

Second, more generally — and maybe in a slightly protective way related to the role and responsibilities of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — we constantly face challenges at that committee in — I don’t want to use the word “tinkering” with the Criminal Code — but in making individualized adjustments. It’s a big enough challenge as it is to be comfortable that we are addressing those questions in an organized, logical and coherent way.

With respect to first-degree murder, the regime for, essentially, borrowing the concept of planned and deliberate, setting that aside and holding first-degree murder together for other types of offences, particularly based on the victim, is a very fragile and carefully thought-together framework. I don’t even call it a “regime,” but a “framework.” With the greatest of respect, this is a problematic way of making amendments to and expanding the scope of first-degree murder without reflecting on that larger category.

As I think you will know, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was not mandated to work on this bill, and this is a matter, I think, that if it deserves consideration, it should be done independently and with richer degree of thought.

Thank you very much.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Cotter, will you take a question?

Hon. Paula Simons: Thank you, Senator Cotter.

I was reminded, as Senator Carignan was speaking, and as I read the amendment of the R. v. Martineau decision in 1990 — which I remember, because I, many years later, covered a case in which a judge, forgetting that Martineau had struck a section out of the Criminal Code, attempted to convict somebody of second-degree murder with robbery being the predicate felony.

I’m wondering — since you are a constitutional law professor and I am not — if you could tell me whether you think that the court’s reasoning in Martineau would, perhaps, render this amendment unconstitutional, because Martineau found that a person charged with murder must have formed the intent to commit that crime. In this instance, this amendment, even if you didn’t have the intent to commit first-degree murder, you would potentially be captured. I wonder if you think the argumentation in Martineau would flow to be mirrored in this.