Bill C-267 (Historical)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing the period of 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.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑235 may seem appealing at first glance because it deals with cases involving people who have committed heinous crimes. It is hard to imagine anything worse than kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. I fully understand the desire to come down hard on people who commit such acts. Still, there is something our Conservative colleagues do not seem to understand, and I do not know why. Perhaps they think that, if they keep trying, it will work eventually, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled otherwise in R. v. Bissonnette. Repeated attempts will not change that. The maximum is 25 years.

Bill C‑235 is not our Conservative colleagues' first attempt, as I was saying. This is the eighth bill on this issue. It started in 2013. It may have started before that, but that is as far back as I looked. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has introduced this four times. Other Conservative colleagues, whose ridings I will not name because I do not know them off the top of my head, have also introduced similar bills. For instance, there was Bill S‑224, introduced by Senator Boisvenu, as well as Bills C‑296, C‑267, C‑266, C‑478 and C‑587. None of those attempts succeeded. They are back at it again today. That is all well and good, but I think we need to be serious. We have important work to do here. We were talking about budget issues earlier. We are still discussing last year's budget, and a new budget will be tabled the day after tomorrow. Bills like this one have been introduced eight times and have not been passed, so can we move on to something else?

I like that. In an ideal world, a person who commits crimes like that should receive harsh, very harsh, or even the harshest of all treatment. Society, however, has rules that set limits on such things. A murder, whether in the first or second degree, results in a life sentence from the outset. That is the way it is. The difference between the two is eligibility to apply for parole. If the crime is first-degree murder, the period of parole ineligibility is 25 years. Before then, parole is simply not an option. For second-degree murder, it is 10 years. Even then, however, the judge may seek recommendations from the jury and increase that period from 10 years to as much as 25 years. I will repeat that we are talking about cases involving abduction, sexual assault and murder. Under the law as it currently stands, where a murder is accompanied by either a sexual assault or an abduction, the offender will in either case face a minimum of 25 years before becoming eligible to apply for parole. As for a period of 40 years, the Supreme Court has already ruled that out.

We can certainly look at 33 other bills that, in one form or another, seek to achieve the same objective. It is simply impossible. Even if I, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, were to say that this is a good idea, that it reflects my personal view and that offenders should remain imprisoned for 40 years, I do not have the authority to make that happen. That is not my position, of course, but let us pretend that I am persuasive enough to convince the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and Parliament itself to vote in favour of such a measure. One, two or three years later, the Supreme Court would review the matter and conclude that Parliament had no authority to enact the legislation. Personally, I want to make a difference in my work as an MP and, with all due respect to my colleagues who are acting in good faith—and I do acknowledge that—I have to say that this is, unfortunately, a waste of time.

We heard this point raised earlier. As our colleague across the aisle noted, obtaining parole is no easy matter. First, it is not automatic. The vast majority of applications are denied. In 2023–2024, the parole grant rate stood at 32.4%. The vast majority of applications were denied. Furthermore, anyone seeking parole must demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada that they no longer pose a risk to society and that the likelihood of reoffending is negligible or non-existent. Applicants must meet a number of conditions.

If these conditions are met and someone manages to convince the Parole Board to grant them parole, it is important to remember that parole comes with conditions attached. It is not as though the offender is handed a ticket and told to go off on vacation, that everything is settled and that nobody wants to hear from them again. Far from it. The offender will have to meet regularly with a parole officer. A number of conditions will have to be met. There may be curfews, a prohibition on drinking alcohol and a number of other conditions. It is not a free-for-all.

Once again, I understand the desire to ask whether there is a way to be strict enough with someone who abducts a young girl, sexually assaults her and kills her. I feel the same way. I think that this is unacceptable. I will keep to myself what I think about that sort of individual, but I agree that severe consequences are warranted.

However, we must also abide by the rules adopted by our society. These rules have been upheld by the Supreme Court, particularly in the Bissonnette case. My Conservative colleague referred to it earlier. Alexandre Bissonnette was sentenced to prison with no parole eligibility for 150 years. One does not need to be a medical expert to recognize that, as of now, it is not possible to live for 150 years. The Supreme Court held that such a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned that sentence and held that the maximum would be 25 years. That is the maximum. Parole ineligibility periods cannot exceed 25 years.

That does not mean that the inmate will be released from prison after 25 years. They have been sentenced to life in prison. They will remain an inmate for the rest of their life. What parole means is that, instead of keeping them in a cell, we can release them. They will be able to apply for parole after 25 years. They will be able to tell the Parole Board that they are rehabilitated and that they are asking to be released. It does not matter how they were rehabilitated or why. That will be assessed when the time comes. The Parole Board will conduct an investigation and determine whether or not they should be released. That is all. The 25-year sentence is not being revised. We are simply giving these inmates the ability to ask to be released at the end of 25 years. They may choose to apply for parole, and according to the statistics, it is likely that they will do so. They can apply after 25 years, but they may never actually be released and they may die in prison. Yes, under special circumstances, the Parole Board may decide to release such inmates. I do not want to lecture the House, but this seems pretty clear to me.

I cannot understand why, once again, our Conservative colleagues are stubborn about this proposal. I acknowledge that they are acting in good faith. I was elected to the House 11 years ago. In 11 years, I have had discussions with many people and I have disagreed with many members. Still, I have not met any, or at least not many, and perhaps no member of Parliament who acted in bad faith. I acknowledge their good faith. From their perspective, it is important and we should pass legislative amendments to increase it to 40 years. I acknowledge that. I do not agree with them, but I acknowledge that they are acting in good faith, because they think that is how things work.

However, I urge them to reread the Bissonnette decision, to digest it, to fully understand it and to include it in the Conservative narrative that this cannot be done in Canada, under the existing law.

If the Conservatives still wish to go further, I invite them to look at the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They could invoke the notwithstanding clause, the way others, including Quebec, have in other cases, cases involving secularism, among other things. By invoking the notwithstanding clause, they might be able to convince the Supreme Court that, despite what it has said, we have the right to do things differently, but that is just a theory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for bringing forward Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would amend the Criminal Code.

The bill is about putting victims' rights first. It would do that through amendments to the Criminal Code, which, as was already articulated very well by our shadow minister for justice, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, would increase the parole ineligibility that a jury can recommend to a judge for people convicted of committing the most heinous of crimes, to anywhere from 25 years up to 40 years. The discretionary powers would be given to the judge, who could also take into consideration the offender's character, the nature of the crime and the jury's recommendation to impose the same 25 to 40 years of parole ineligibility at the time of sentencing.

It is important we talk about the fact that this bill is not about increasing stiffer penalties for these sadistic murderers. We are talking about the most depraved of society. We are talking about those who kidnap, rape and kill the most vulnerable, such as children, women and often the elderly. Those who commit some of the most heinous acts are those we are targeting through this bill.

The bill is about saving the families of the victims from having to go through the agony of attending these unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings. We have to remember that somebody who is serving a life sentence of up to 25 years can start applying for parole at year 23. Often, these individuals, who have been incarcerated for committing the most despicable acts of abduction, sexual assault and murder, use this as a way to feed their own depravity by having the families come in, seeing them face to face and having them live through the trauma of what happened. The bill would give the jury and judges the power to make the decision, as defined by the charter and as respected under our common law, to determine whether to give 25 to 40 years of parole ineligibility.

I originally drafted this bill back in 2013, when it was tabled as Bill C-478 in the 41st Parliament. Later that year, in 2013, I was promoted to parliamentary secretary, so I was not allowed to carry forward the bill. It was dropped and was then picked up by one of our former colleagues, Colin Mayes, a former British Columbia member of Parliament, as Bill C-587. It passed second reading and was supported by the Liberals, the NDP and some independents, along with the Conservatives, on September 24, 2014.

In 2016, I reintroduced the bill as Bill C-266 after the election, and it passed second reading on May 16, 2019. Again, the Conservatives and the Liberals supported it. That bill made it through committee and came out in 2019, but of course in 2019 we had another election, so it was lost.

In 2021, it was retabled as Bill C-267 by the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry and was also presented simultaneously at that time in the Senate by then senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, as Bill S-224.

In the 44th Parliament, in 2022, I retabled this bill as Bill C-296, but it was way down on the Order Paper and of course never made it through. In this Parliament, here in the first draw, I am glad to see that my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has picked up this bill and is running forward with it, with some very personal experiences on this as well from people in his riding who have been impacted.

I want to talk about the nexus of why I did this. Back in 2009 and 2010, we were hearing about the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Tori Stafford. In 2010, Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and prosecuted. Then Michael Rafferty, her partner in crime for this horrendous and disgusting act, was sentenced in 2012.

During this time, while I think all of our hearts were breaking listening to this story as it played out on the airwaves, Clifford Olson was dying from cancer in prison. I heard Sharon Rosenfeldt talk on the radio about how the murderer, who killed a number of children, impacted them. When he was getting ready for parole board hearings, he would send letters to the families of the victims and describe in detail how he tortured, raped and killed their children.

It is because of that sadistic behaviour, the tormenting of families and the use of parole board hearings to feed his own sick appetite, that it became clear that we had to do something to protect the families. I knew full well that both Michael Rafferty and Terry-Lynne McClintic were going to be eligible for parole sometime around 2033 because they killed Tori Stafford.

I believe that all Canadians would consider it unacceptable that families have to go through this ongoing saga of parole board hearings every couple of years and that these monsters who stole their loved ones and killed them sadistically continue to have the opportunity to retraumatize the families.

There have been a number of legal arguments about increasing parole ineligibility, consecutive sentencing and the like. I can say that this bill was fashioned after Bill C-48 in the 40th Parliament, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act, as well as Bill S-6 from the 40th Parliament, which also provided parole ineligibility at the discretion of the courts, and that is charter compliant.

I want to read into the record some of the quotes that we have heard over the years.

Susan Ashley, whose sister Linda Bright was murdered in 1978 by Donald Armstrong, 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”.

She did an interview in the London Free Press back in 2012. Susan stated, referring to Donald Armstrong, “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.”

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've had to do in the last 20 years”.

Gary Rosenfeldt, Sharon Rosenfeldt's husband, who was a stepfather to Daryn Johnsrude, said publicly, after going through a number of parole hearings against Clifford Olsen in 1997, 2006 and 2010, 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.”

Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson back in 1982. Darlene's sister, Terri, said this about having to go through these unnecessary, repetitive and painful 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.” In the Toronto Star, in talking about her mother reading her victim impact statement, she said, “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.”

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.”

I ask that all members of the House allow this bill to get to committee so that we can stop the revictimization of families by these monsters who are convicted and will never qualify for parole.