Bill C-320

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that information that is disclosed to the victim of an offence regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole must include an explanation of how the dates were determined.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

moved that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), as reported (without amendment) from the committee

Public Safety and National Security

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay.

When appearing before our committee last month, the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime said victims need clear information that explains how they can register to be informed about an offender and their sentence and how to provide input for consideration before decisions are made.

I was wondering if you could speak to how Bill C-320 will provide greater clarity to victims about the crime and their role in the criminal justice system.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, and I think committee members might have received a letter from Victims Services Durham Region. I've also heard from many families who have been victimized by some of the most horrific crimes out there. Maybe what I could do, Mr. Motz, is just read a little bit from that letter into the record. It says:

I'm writing on behalf of Victims Services of Durham Region to voice support for Bill C-320, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act....

Our agency has worked extensively with survivors and witnesses of violent crime, and their families, including those impacted by homicide. We have seen firsthand the indescribable effects of trauma and the triggering and re-traumatization to those impacted as they navigate years of involvement with the criminal justice system. At every intersection with the system they are reminded of the violence experienced and the irreparable harm done, no matter how much time has passed.

I could read through the whole thing, but it's basically about when victims should know. It says:

All changes to a sentence related to a loved one's death or their own victimization can re-traumatize. Conditional releases, pardons and transfers that impact offenders, also impact their victims.

I could read from the stakeholders. There's a letter I have from Daniel Silcox. I don't know if you remember this case, Mr. Motz, but his father, James Silcox, was the first victim of killer nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer. She injected him with a lethal dose of insulin on August 12, 2007.

The news of that murder sent his family into extreme trauma and a downward spiral, and the offender was sentenced to eight life sentences, four seven-year sentences and two four-year sentences and was eventually sent to Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener-Waterloo. He is a registered victim relative to the crime. In October 2018, it came to his attention that the offender had been moved, but his calls to Victim Services of Kingston were met with indifference, and he was informed that, due to confidentiality reasons, her new location couldn't be disclosed.

Again, I could read through the whole thing, but he basically said that he strongly believes they have the right to know exactly where their father's killer is located and her movements and that they certainly should not only have the knowledge but also input into the parole proceedings when they take place. He complained about an extreme offender bias, and that's what I heard over and over again from victims' families.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues of all parties for speaking in support of this bill at both first and second readings, as well as for voting unanimously in support of Bill C‐320 at second reading.

I also want to thank Lisa Freeman, the person who inspired this bill.

As stated before, this bill is intended to help families who are plunged into unfathomable situations, demoralized and retraumatized by the actions of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime. As an example of how victims are retraumatized due to a lack of information, allow me to tell you a little bit about Lisa's story.

Lisa's father was tragically bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991. It's also worth noting that this murderer was out on parole when this horrific crime took place. She was caught off guard when her father's killer was eligible for early parole only 20 years into his 25 years to life sentence. She believes, and I agree, that a lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined causes the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment towards our justice system.

It's the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This legislation makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding the disclosure of information to victims that would provide such respect and dignity. It would require that information regarding the review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offender's victims, including an explanation of how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process in an effort to be as transparent as possible. We can't argue with the logic of the bill.

Sadly, victims don't have any support compared to the support our government gives to criminals. A murderer's rights should never trump a victim's rights, yet they seem to every single time.

A sentence like life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply severity and punishment. This is simply not true. It is misleading to families, and it's also misleading to the public. Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can be released on other forms of parole well before for personal development or temporary absences and community service work. What we are trying to correct with this bill is simply victims' access to this information as well as an explanation.

A recent update from Lisa Freeman exemplifies this. She said, “I was notified in July that: My father's killer's day parole was extended for 6 months and when it goes up again for renewal in January of 2024 and even if he doesn't request full parole, he can be automatically granted it at the same time. No hearing I can attend, and no opportunity for me to object...just an in-office, paper decision. Also, at the same time I was notified that the 'conditions on parole' that I have in place—no transfers to the province of Ontario, and parts of BC—can be lifted at any time his Case Management Team feels that he 'would benefit from attending courses in these areas'. What an outrage that the only comfort for me and my family from this axe murderer can be lifted at whim of his team. The system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims should be made equal to, or better than, the rights of the offenders.”

Here we have it colleagues. A killer can be released into a community where his victims live at the whim of his case management team. There is no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made and when the release will take place. I know you will agree that this is unconscionable.

Families that have suffered because of an offender's action don't deserve to be revictimized by the parole system. Victims of crime have enough to carry.

Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often have to stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. Victims deserve better, colleagues. At the very least, they deserve accurate and timely explanations and information.

With that, I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece that is too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members, your subcommittee met on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, to consider the business of the committee and agreed on a number of items. You all received by email last Friday, a copy of the sixth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Does the committee wish to adopt the report?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of Bill C‐320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would now like to welcome our witness today, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Colin Carrie, member of Parliament for Oshawa.

Mr. Carrie, welcome. You have up to five minutes.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'm sorry. It's about the “disclosure of information to victims” that is being proposed.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

When you're talking about an overall regime, let's talk a bit about Bill C-320. In your opinion, what does it do that's good and, in your opinion, what needs to be done above and beyond what is being proposed?

Criminal Code

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to add what I hope are meaningful words on today’s bill. How we in this place can act to prevent intimate partner violence is an issue that has impacted my personal work here over these eight years. I know it concerns all members in this place.

Statistics Canada reports that, in 2021, there were 537 women per 100,000 people who were victims of domestic violence. Intimate partner violence accounts for almost one-third of the crimes committed in Canada and has increased 6% in the last year alone. Violent crime as a whole has increased 39%. Sexual assaults have gone up 71%. This is part of a larger pattern of increased levels of crime after eight years of the Prime Minister’s catch-and-release bail policies.

These statistics have an even greater impact when we consider that 80% of criminal activity involving an intimate partner goes unreported. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. Why is there such a lack of faith in our justice system? Why do victims feel there is greater benefit in not initiating criminal proceedings? Why do they not feel protected throughout a traumatizing period in their lives?

We can point to larger trends. Between 2004 and 2014, cases where failure to comply with a court order, when they were among the charges, grew by 25%, and cases involving charges related to a breach of probation increased by 21%. When intimate partner violence is reported, insufficient steps are taken by the justice system to deter further violence. This is despite the fact that in 60% of homicides involving an intimate partner, there was a history of violence. Half of these homicides involve an offender who has already been convicted on similar offences.

The Senate sponsor of this bill referred to one particularly egregious case, which I will now put on the record in this House. In Quebec, an individual accused of femicide had committed 50 criminal offences in his lifetime, including three sexual assaults and 11 instances of domestic violence. After violating his bail conditions a third time, he was arrested, but subsequently released. Just over one week later, he murdered his former partner. No wonder trust in our system has been shattered.

For the sake of victims, we need to do a better job of listening to and acting on their concerns. Bill S-205 is about providing our justice system with every tool we can to empower victims of intimate partner violence to come forward when crimes do occur and ensure that their rights are placed above those of their offender from the start of the legal process. It would ensure victims are consulted about their safety and security needs before conditions of release are imposed on an accused person. These conditions must take the victim’s opinion into account. If the victim is an intimate partner of the accused, they have the right to be made aware of the bail conditions.

A judge may choose to require the accused to wear an electronic bracelet upon their release, effectively creating a barrier between the victim and her attacker and ensuring law enforcement is alerted if the safety perimeter is broken. The bill would also extend the length of peace bonds and increase penalties for violating them. Again, this is proposed with the victim top of mind, allowing them a larger window of time after the attack takes place.

There is always more that can be done to bolster trust in criminal justice and to encourage victims to report their attackers without fear of retribution, but as it currently stands, an individual’s conditions of release are not subject to any monitoring mechanisms. This is not fair to victims, the public at large or our current understanding of intimate partner violence. What we know is not being reflected in the laws we have.

That is why this bill is one of many initiatives we should be adopting. I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-320, or the truth in sentencing bill. It was just recently passed in the House with all-party support. The bill is another common-sense tool that would ensure we are prioritizing victims’ rights over those of the offender. At the core of Bill C-320 is transparency, which would ensure that victims are informed of why specific decisions are being made concerning an inmate’s parole date, temporary absence or work release. The victims should know all of those circumstances in advance of them happening and have the opportunity to contribute.

I am also proud of the work I did earlier this year on protecting pregnant women from violent men through Bill C-311. We know that, when women are pregnant, they are more susceptible to violence. We know that this is something that takes place in our country more than we realize when these situations are not top of mind. They are not handled within our court system in ways that draw more attention to the fact that these things are taking place.

It was affirming to me to know that the majority of Canadians who read the bill for what it was knew full well that it would have provided judges with new aggravating factors that are not consistently enforced at this time. In other words, these were Canadians who understood exactly what the purpose and intent was and that it was a very straightforward bill. At this time, a judge can choose to consider the fact that a woman was pregnant and that a child was injured, but they are not required to. This is just another scenario where, as with this bill, we need to do everything we can to protect women in situations of intimate partner violence.

There is a common theme among these bills. Victims believe that the justice system is not there for them when they choose to report their abusers. It is very clear, with the number of catch-and-release bail circumstances we find in this country, that violent crimes are continuing to take place. We need more deterrence and more reasons for individuals to reconsider, or not commit the crime in the first place, as well as to ensure that they are not carrying on with crimes when they are released prior to facing their court cases or on bail.

Individuals who are victims of violence believe that the subsequent steps that are being taken by courts after they have come forward and taken the risk of being attacked or abused for presenting their case, leave them at risk. This bill, Bill S-205, would make a significant difference in that situation. It takes a proactive approach. In other words, we are not waiting for other horrific situations to take place; we are curtailing them. That is just common sense.

This is a common-sense bill. It is about putting the victim at the centre of the judicial process and giving them more power to participate right from the start. Therefore, when the individual is facing charges and is being released, even in that circumstance, the preference is being given to protecting the victim.

I believe that we need to do everything we can in the House to pass any bill that would protect women from violence. That is certainly the case with Bill S-205. I encourage the House to move quickly and efficiently on it. It enables us to reflect even more on the opportunities that we have in this place, which we sometimes do not take for political reasons. Members can believe me that those who face violent crime cannot understand why we do not take every opportunity we have to do more to protect victims and to ensure that they are cared for.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-320 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like begin by thanking all of my parliamentary colleagues and particularly the new member for Oxford for his speech.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues who participated in this debate and who expressed support for the bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Lisa Freeman, the person who inspired Bill C-320, a bill we like to call the truth in sentencing bill.

As stated before, this bill is intended to help families who are plunged into unfathomable situations. They can be retraumatized and demoralized by actions of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime, but unfortunately, this is at best an illusion.

Lisa's father was tragically bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991. I think it is also worth noting, as colleagues have spoken tonight of this happening in their constituencies as well, that this murderer was out on parole when this horrific crime took place.

Lisa's family was shocked to hear that life did not mean life for this murderer. Transparency for victims was not a priority for our parole system. Victims did not have the right to know or the right for information, for transparency, so Lisa bravely took it upon herself to right this wrong and fight to improve the system for victims, victims' families and future victims. It is a reminder that it is the responsibility of the government and our responsibility as elected officials to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

As stated earlier, this legislation is a simple, very short legislative change. It would make a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act for disclosure of information to victims that would provide such respect and dignity. It would require that information regarding the review and eligibility of all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offender's victims, including the explanation of how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process in an effort to be as transparent as possible. We cannot argue with the logic of this bill, and I hope that we shall have full support among members in the House.

Sadly, victims do not have any support compared to the support our government gives to criminals. I would like to remind my colleagues that it is the job of the Minister of Public Safety and this government to keep the public safe. The job description is public safety, not criminals' safety. A murderer's rights should never trump a victim's rights.

A sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply a severity of punishment. This is simply not true, and it is misleading to families and the general public. Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can actually be released on other forms of parole well before then for personal development, temporary absences and community service work. In prisons across the country, offenders who have committed some of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, can be housed in minimum-security prisons, and families are constantly aware that the level of security does not match the severity of the crime. This is exemplified from an update from Lisa Freeman and the recent, outrageous communication she received from our soft-on-crime parole system.

Lisa Freeman said:

I was notified in July that:

My father's killer’s day parole was extended for 6 months and when it goes up again for renewal in January of 2024 and even if he doesn't request full parole, he can be automatically granted it at the same time. No hearing I can attend, and no opportunity for me to object...just an in-office, paper decision.

Also at the same time I was notified that the 'conditions on parole' that I have in place—no transfers to the province of Ontario, and parts of BC—can be lifted at any time his Case Management Team feels that he 'would benefit from attending courses in these areas'.

What an outrage that the only comfort for me and my family from this axe murderer can be lifted at whim of his team.

The system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims should be made equal to, or better than, the rights of the offenders.

So here we have it. A killer can be released into the community where victims live at the whim of his case management team, and no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made and when the release will take place. I know that we all agree that this is unconscionable. Victims deserve better, and at the very least, they deserve accurate information.

I want to thank my colleagues here this evening, and I hope I get full support when this bill comes up for a vote in the House.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate on Bill C-320.

As my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-320. The Bloc's position is part of its commitment to supporting initiatives that ensure women's safety and that combat violence against women. We believe that victims will significantly benefit from obtaining as much information as possible about their abuser, as well as the situation surrounding his release, if applicable.

The Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with our support for Bill C‑233. As my colleague said earlier, that bill amended “the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.” The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and to strengthen the bond of trust between the public and our institutions. That last point is very important.

Our justice system is undoubtedly one of our most precious assets. We live in a society that is the envy of a lot of nations around the world. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. These are the rights that the justice system has the duty to protect for all Quebeckers and all Canadians. This duty is the guarantor of a strong democracy that protects fundamental rights. As elected representatives, we are responsible for protecting and safeguarding these rights.

We know that our criminal justice system has many shortcomings, as shown by many studies and testimonies. According to the 2022 national justice survey, nearly 49% of Canadians believe that the justice system is not really fair. That is half the population. Almost 39% of them think that the justice system is not accessible to all. One cannot be against the idea of periodically reviewing a system that is mired in red tape and where the human element is commonly pushed aside.

We think that more transparency is needed, particularly with respect to victims. We need to strengthen and, in some cases, even rebuild the relationship of trust, which does not always seem to mean much.

It is vital that victims feel safe throughout the legal process and that they believe that the rulings handed down are enough to keep them safe. Otherwise, many people will not feel comfortable reporting their attacker. That is something that we have seen and continue to see far too often. Some think that the risks outweigh the benefits. When a person comes to that conclusion, then the system has failed in its primary purpose.

With the marked increase in family violence over the past five years, as demonstrated by Statistics Canada, women and girls are the greatest victims of this flaw in the system. It is already hard enough to report an attacker. These victims have to deal with judgment, prejudice, and procedures that are often far too long. They need to be very resilient and courageous to get to the end of the process, all the while hoping that the court will decide to put their attacker behind bars for a time.

Once that happens, survivors can catch their breath. They can feel a little safer. They resume their lives and go about their business. They regain their confidence. However, after a few months, sometimes years, they learn that their abuser has been granted a temporary absence, parole or statutory release, and they are given no explanation of the procedure that led to that decision. For many of them, it is back to square one. The feeling of insecurity returns with a vengeance. Our criminal justice system, at least in its current form, does not always know how to adequately protect victims.

In my riding, I had the immense privilege of speaking with a sexual assault survivor. I did so with great humility, and I must say I was impressed. Moreover, she was a victim of a repeat offender. Before assaulting my constituent, this individual had already been incarcerated as a serial rapist. It was not just one assault; it was a series of rapes. He was released on parole. He went back to prison for a few years because he assaulted a few women while on parole, but he was released again and he reoffended. Again, he assaulted more women.

What message are we sending to victims when we release such an individual without offering his past victims adequate reassurance or, if necessary, support?

My constituent that I was talking about is a real fighter. She stood up and fought to prevent the release of this offender despite her own injuries. I have deep respect for her.

I also have deep respect for every woman who finds the strength to stand up and urge her politicians to adapt our laws to guarantee her safety and peace of mind.

It seems clear to me, under these conditions, that providing victims with an explanation for the release of their attacker is a matter of basic respect. It shows the empathy we should demonstrate in enforcing legislation and in shaping our justice system.

It gives the survivors of such crimes the right to question decisions made by the system and to file an appeal, if needed, if they feel that it is necessary. It is about properly supporting them in the very essential healing process.

Although Quebec may not be perfect, it has always stood out as a leader in protecting victims, including by bringing in electronic bracelets and setting up courts specializing in cases of sexual violence. It certainly plans to continue to serve as a model within Canada and globally. It is always important to keep the interests of the victim at the heart of the process.

For the benefit of Quebeckers and Canadians, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑320. It is a small step, to be sure, but it is still a step toward building an effective justice system capable of fulfilling its mission.

This bill strengthens the right to safety of victims of crime, especially victims of domestic and sexual violence. It is somewhat in keeping with the spirit of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I mentioned earlier that guarantees everyone the right to security of the person.

In short, when passed into law, this bill will strengthen the protection of victims, the transparency of the criminal justice system, respect for everyone's rights and, above all, democracy as a whole.

More importantly, it will help build confidence in our justice system among women who, all too often, still do not dare to report their attackers because the system does not always seem to be on their side.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to my hon. colleague from Oshawa's private member's bill, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).

When I was asked to speak to this bill, the answer was an easy yes. It is easy to support Bill C-320 because this crucial piece of legislation prioritizes victims' rights in the Canadian justice system. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. It is time that victims and their families are prioritized by our justice system, not continuously revictimized by it.

However, the Liberal government repeatedly fails on that account. It has been easy on criminals while tough on families. After eight years of the Prime Minister's failed catch-and-release bail and soft-on-crime policies, crime has never been worse.

Ever since the Liberal government passed Bill C-75, it unleashed a wave of violent crime across our country. Since 2015, total violent crime has increased by almost 40%, homicides have increased by 45% and are up for the fourth year in a row, gang-related homicides have increased by over 100%, violent gun crime has increased by over 100%, total sexual assaults have increased by almost 75%, sex crimes against children have increased by over 125% and kidnappings have increased by almost 40%. With more crime and chaos across our country, there are more and more victims, and it seems that the system is putting the rights of criminals over the rights of victims.

That is why victims and families of victims like Lisa are speaking out and are the inspiration and driving force of this bill. Lisa's father was brutally murdered in 1991, and the offender received a conviction of 25 years to life. Lisa and her family, like many victims of crime, were caught off guard when they were notified that the offender was eligible for parole before the 25 years indicated on the conviction record. Her father's killer was eligible for early parole only 20 years into his sentence of 25 years to life. Victims usually think life means life. She believes, and I agree, that the lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined causes the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment of the criminal justice system.

This legislation makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide respect and dignity to victims and their families. It would require that information regarding the review eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offenders' victims, including explaining how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process, to be as transparent as possible. Victims deserve accurate and timely information regarding the parole process.

Hearing about this bill and Lisa's story, I was reminded of a similar case in my own riding, a story I am sure all members are familiar with, the tragic case of Tori Stafford, a young girl whose life was cut short by a horrific murder. It serves as a stark reminder of why we must advocate for the victims' rights.

In April 2009, Tori, an innocent eight-year-old, was abducted, raped and murdered by two individuals. It was a senseless act that sent shockwaves not only through Oxford but through our country. The pain and anguish that Tori's family and loved ones endured was unimaginable. This traumatized Tori's family, our community of Oxford and our country.

Unfortunately, the Stafford family's journey with the justice system has not been a smooth one. Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic were both guilty of murdering Tori. McClintic pleaded guilty in 2010, and in 2013, after his appeals, Michael Rafferty received the same sentence. Both were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years in maximum-security facilities. However, in 2018, we saw that McClintic made headlines for being transferred to a minimum-security healing lodge.

With the advocacy of Tori's family, the public outcry was strong and swift, and McClintic was returned to prison after the public safety minister intervened. However, this raises the question of how we have gotten to the point that, eight years after raping and murdering a child, a violent offender can be transferred to a low-security facility. Why is the criminal justice system providing false comfort to the families of our victims?

When I spoke to Tori's father about this incident, he stated that the Parole Board did not notify him of McClintic's transfer. He shared how, each time the offenders were transferred, it brought back the terrible memories, picked at the wounds they were trying to heal and caused them pain. At times when the offender of the crime was transferred to a lower-security facility or granted temporary leave from a prison for various reasons, it was not always communicated to them. It was traumatic for their family.

Tori Stafford's story is a heart-wrenching example of the dire need for comprehensive reform of our parole and justice systems. We need greater transparency. We must prioritize victims and victims' families, rather than allowing criminals to dictate how the process will progress.

While this incident is older, Rodney Stafford, Tori Stafford's father, was again in the media this summer when we heard about Paul Bernardo's transfer happening without much warning to his victims' families. Rodney discussed the need for transparency surrounding the incarceration of his daughter's killers, especially when they become eligible for parole. He knows that there is a chance that one or both will one day be released, but until then, he says that victims' families deserve more respect. He said, “The victim families, we don't have any rights”. He went on to say, “They've been eliminated.”

Ultimately, that is why we are here today. Bill C-320 would address the fundamental issue of victims' rights and aim to provide them with the support and recognition they deserve. This legislation would acknowledge that victims such as Tori Stafford and her family, and advocates such as Lisa and Rodney, should be at the forefront of parole board considerations.

The bill would seek to rectify the power imbalance that often exists between victims and offenders. It would ensure that the system itself does not revictimize the families. That is why this bill would be a crucial step forward in making our justice system more compassionate, supportive and responsive to families' needs.

It is necessary reform that pays homage to victims who have suffered immeasurable pain and deserve better. This policy has the support of the victims' rights community, and this amendment is a very simple one. It is the addition of a single sentence that would put victims first and make a world of difference.

Bill C-320 is an essential piece of legislation that acknowledges the pain and suffering endured by victims. By passing this bill, we would send a clear message that Canada stands with the victims and not the criminals. We would stand with victims by providing them with the rights and support they deserve throughout the parole process.

Let us not forget the lessons learned from cases such as Tori Stafford's and Lisa's: We have an urgent need for further parole reform and a justice system that would put our victims first. I urge my honourable colleagues to support Bill C-320 and make our justice system a more compassionate and just place for all.

We will and we must do more to support victims and their families. It is the right thing to do.