Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

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


James Bezan  Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)


Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of June 20, 2022

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-296.


This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—LacollePrivate Members' Business

June 21st, 2022 / 5:40 p.m.
See context


Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit out of breath after running over here from the all-important operations committee.

I am pleased to rise on this private member's bill. I want to address all my comments to the bill itself. I am sure the member who presented it is a wonderful parliamentarian. I served with her on OGGO, but I have to say I am not a big fan of this bill. It is almost like it is “bad private members' bills” week. Earlier, I had to speak to Bill C-245, which was talking about bringing the $35 billion in the wasteful infrastructure bank over to be $35 billion to add to the wasteful infrastructure department.

I have to say that with this bill it is like “déjà vu all over again”, to quote Yogi Berra. I recall actually speaking to this bill about four years ago in the 42nd Parliament. I was not a fan of it then, and I am not a fan of it now. The big reason is that I have to wonder, of all the things going on in Quebec right now, or in Canada or around the world, if this is what we should be discussing in the House of Commons and taking up two hours of our time.

For example, I look at issues in Quebec right now. I think in the member's own riding we have an increase in problems at Roxham Road again. We have heard from the Government of Quebec of the incredible strain on its social services from these illegal or irregular crossings, however we wish to term them, but I think that is a bigger, more important issue we should perhaps be debating right now.

Of passports, we hear repeatedly in the House from across the country. In Edmonton, people are actually lining up at 12:30 in the morning to get passports, so that is not quite a day in advance, but it is the same problem in Quebec. We actually heard from Trois-Rivières that calls for help from citizens at the Trois-Rivières constituency office were increasing. They have been approaching decade highs daily for three weeks now. Why are we not talking about a private member's bill addressing that issue?

There is a labour shortage. I recall, actually now for several years, hearing about the labour shortage in Quebec. It is hurting productivity. It is hurting the economy of farmers, retail and aerospace. We cannot get workers in that province. Again, this is directed at the PMB. I would think it is a much more important issue we should be chatting about right now, as well as hurrying up the access to foreign workers.

Of course, there is inflation. It is 6.8%, and we will be hearing new inflation numbers tomorrow. My guess is that it is going to rocket past 7%. We hear in Quebec, again, about the shortage of bodies that is going to be driving wage inflation and making the inflation issue more troublesome. One would wonder if that is not a more important issue to be debating right now than a name change for a riding.

There are border issues and the ArriveCAN app, or “ArriveCAN'T” app, as we call it. This is a quote from the newspaper:

It's time to bid farewell to the ArriveCAN app, say border-city mayors, tourism industry leaders and others who complain Canada's stringent COVID-19 rules for international travellers are encouraging would-be U.S. visitors to spend their tourist dollars at home.

Estelle Muzzi, mayor of the Quebec border community of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, says that the rules are a drag on border crossings that are vital for the local economies. I think that mayor might actually be in the member's riding. Here we have the mayor saying she has issues with ArriveCAN and passports, and we have to wonder why we are talking about a riding change, especially right now.

With the redistributions, the ridings are going to change completely in Quebec, probably. My own riding is getting split into Edmonton West and Edmonton Winterburn. It would be strange for me to perhaps change the name of my riding right now to “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall” or “Edmonton Kanye West”, as I jokingly call it, knowing that in two years the riding was going to change to Edmonton Winterburn.

Again, we have a lot more important issues we can talk about. I want to give some examples of some PMBs that have come through the House recently from my Conservative colleagues that, perhaps, are better examples of how parliamentarians should be spending their time.

Bill C-296, which is from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, is a PMB to amend the criminal code to find the person convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event—

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActRoutine Proceedings

June 20th, 2022 / 4 p.m.
See context


James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Lakeland for seconding this private member's bill. This is the third Parliament that I have introduced this legislation in, and I hope to see it make it through all stages this time. I have been lucky to get it to committee and through committee in the past.

This bill, called the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, would amend the Criminal Code and empower our courts so that they would have the judicial discretion to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing those criminals, the most depraved individuals in our society, who commit three crimes on one victim: kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. Those individuals, the Clifford Olsons and Paul Bernardos of the world, never, ever receive parole, but they use parole, and Clifford Olson was a perfect case of this, to revictimize and traumatize the families by going into gruesome details of how they murdered children. We want to save those families from having to live through that. This bill aims to limit victims' families from having to go through these unnecessary and traumatic Parole Board hearings and hearing more about how their children and loved ones were killed.

When I thought of this bill back in 2013, it was because of cases that came out at that time. We can all remember Tori Stafford and Noelle Paquette, and how they were brutally killed. Unfortunately, they were innocent bystanders who were captured, sexually assaulted and murdered by the perpetrators. These perpetrators are psychopaths who will never see the light of day, and that is why we need to bring forward legislation to give the courts the ability to extend parole ineligibility. This bill is not about mandatory minimums.

I also want to thank Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. Senator Boisvenu is going to sponsor a similar bill in the Senate, and he has always championed this cause. Last week was the 20th anniversary of a similar grotesque murder that happened to his own daughter.

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