Bill C-320 (Historical)

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

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all members who spoke to the bill today and those who spoke during the first hour of second reading on November 18, 2025. Their contributions and support are sincerely appreciated, not just by me but by all victims of crime and those who have worked on this bill.

When Canadians are victimized by crime, they often carry psychological and emotional burdens for life. This private member's bill proposes common-sense, realistic measures aimed at reducing the stress victims experience in dealing with the parole and release process of those who have victimized them. The legislation before us today deserves to be passed because it would deliver relief for victims of crime. It would lighten the burdens they carry by providing them explanations about how parole and release dates have been calculated in relation to the offenders who victimized them.

Debates of this bill, and of a previous bill that proposed the same measures, have reflected how these measures are supported by victims of crime and those who support them and advocate for their rights. As I have articulated in previous debates, the proposals in this bill were brought to Parliament by Lisa Freeman of Oshawa, Ontario.

Ms. Freeman's personal experience of losing her father and spending years navigating Canada's corrections and parole systems in dealing with her father's killer were excruciating for her. When the burden of losing her father to a violent murderer was compounded by the frustration of dealing with government bureaucracies, Lisa resolved to advocate for legislative measures to alleviate the burdens and frustrations that victims of crime carry.

I send my heartfelt thanks to Lisa Freeman. I thank Lisa for her courage, her determination and the hard work that has moved this legislation forward.

The proposals of this private member's bill have been introduced in four consecutive Parliaments, spanning six and a half years. I also thank those who have worked with Ms. Freeman in previous Parliaments to move those proposals forward. I would like to thank the Hon. Lisa Raitt, who tabled Bill C-466 in the 42nd Parliament; Senator Boisvenu, who tabled Bill S-219 in the 43rd Parliament; and Dr. Colin Carrie, who tabled Bill C-320 in the 44th Parliament. I thank them all for their efforts to improve Canadian law.

It is good to see that the government has formally acknowledged the merit and necessity of the bill's proposals and included them in the government's bill, Bill C-16. These measures supporting victims of crime need to be passed as soon as possible. Canadians count on parliamentarians to make Parliament work, and I invite all parliamentarians to join me in moving my private member's bill toward completion, because the outcome of Bill C-16 remains uncertain in a minority government and these changes are worth pursuing through all possible avenues.

These measures could have and should have been passed years ago, and they were very close to being passed just over a year ago. Clause 205 of the government's bill, Bill C-16, contains coordinating amendments that anticipate the possibility of my bill passing before Bill C-16 does. I appreciate the government acknowledging this possibility and drafting those coordinating amendments in the event that my bill passes before the government's bill does.

Now is the time for us, as legislators, to do our part and pass these amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the changes that Lisa Freeman and other victims of crime deserve. I ask all parliamentarians to support victims of crime across Canada by swiftly passing Bill C-221.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a private member's bill sponsored by my good friend and colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

It is a great piece of legislation that will amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with a focus on victims. It is a simple bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our justice system. Unlike other criminal bills, this one does not create a new crime or further define an existing crime. It does not create new penalties for something that already is illegal. It will have no impact on people who have been convicted of a crime and who are incarcerated. However, it will have a very big and positive impact on victims of crime.

At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, when I served on that committee in the last Parliament, we conducted a study on victims of crime. We learned from many victims and their families that, from their perspective, Canada's criminal justice system feels more like a criminal system than a justice system. That is because the focus is on the criminal: Are they guilty? Do we have enough evidence to convict them in a court beyond a reasonable doubt? What would be the appropriate sentence if they are found guilty, or the appropriate release conditions?

Underlying all of this, of course, is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal right everybody has to be presumed innocent. That is all important stuff and nobody is arguing about that. We want a criminal justice system that is fair, balanced and in compliance with our charter, but in all of that, where are the innocent victims whose lives have been upended by the terrible acts of the convicted criminal?

Too often the lives of the victims are a sideshow in our criminal justice system. They need to be more front and centre. We want justice after all, not just for the criminal and not just to put people away for public safety or for punishment. We want a true sense of justice for the innocent, so that they too feel that the justice system is working for them.

That is why I am so pleased that my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, brought forward this private member's bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act focusing on victims. In his speech in this chamber a couple of months ago when this bill was first introduced, he shared a personal story about how a crime committed many years ago impacted him and his family, and to this day the impact is still felt. It never goes away.

I am also very pleased that another colleague, the member for Oshawa, has seconded the bill. She too has a connection with this piece of legislation, because it was her predecessor, a member of Parliament, our friend and former colleague Colin Carrie, who introduced a similar private member's bill in the last Parliament. It was called Bill C-320.

At that time, all the parties agreed it should go ahead and it almost made it over the finish line. It went through the first, second and third readings here. Then it went to the other place for the first and second readings. It then went to committee for third reading. The only thing that was left to do was royal proclamation. What happened to it? It died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued Parliament early last year for the sole purpose of rescuing his faltering Liberal Party from falling over the cliff. I will have more on that some other day, because that is not what we are talking about today.

We are now here in the 45th Parliament and again it appears we have all-party support for this common-sense Conservative bill that is going to have a real and positive impact on victims and their families.

In preparing my talking points for my intervention today, I took the opportunity to read the speeches published in the Hansard that were delivered by other members of other parties. It looks like the Bloc Québécois will support it. That is great. We know the Liberals will support it. As a matter of fact, they like the bill so much that they have adopted the substance of it and have incorporated it into one of their bills, Bill C-16, which is a very large criminal justice bill that runs 166 pages. It is at the justice committee right now undergoing a very thorough review. It may come back here, but in the meantime, we are going to keep pushing my colleague's private member's bill.

As an aside, I am feeling positive. We are seeing a lot of stealing of ideas in the current Parliament, with the Liberals adopting Conservative proposals and calling them their own, proposals that just a short while ago they were criticizing and scoffing at. Now I guess they have finally seen the light. Imitation is the highest form of admiration. I can tell members that it feels really good to be admired by the Liberal side of the House for a change. We do not get a lot of that.

However, I do not want to make too much of this recent and probably very temporary sense of goodwill. The chamber is a very adversarial one after all. Let us just settle on this. This is good legislation, and we should push it through as quickly as we can.

I am well into my speech and I realize I have not even said what the bill would do. I can do no better than to summarize with a sentence from the speech I referenced earlier from my friend, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. He said this on November 18, 2025: “Transparency and accountability are core principles of our democracy, and the bill we debate today seeks to enhance the application of these essential principles, specifically for the benefit of those victimized by crime.” This is a really good summary.

What would the bill do? It seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that victims receive clear explanations about how an offender's eligibility and review dates for temporary absences, release or parole are determined. Victims and their families would be told not only when those dates will be but also the rationale behind why those dates have been chosen, because we believe transparency and accountability are core principles of our democracy.

We have heard from victims of crime that Canada's criminal justice system feels deliberately opaque. They feel left in the dark. It does not have to be that way. We can do better. The bill is a small step in that direction. Let us expedite it through the House and the other place, and push Canada's criminal justice system another small step towards true justice for everyone, including victims of crime.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C-221.

The bill seeks to better inform victims about decisions made by the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada. This measure will not change the whole game for victims and their loved ones, but it would nevertheless allow for greater transparency. It could answer some of the questions raised by victims, who are too often kept in the dark about decisions regarding offenders.

All parties had previously supported Bill C-320 during the last Parliament. It was a mirror bill, so to speak. However, it suffered the same fate as most opposition bills when it died in the Senate.

Bill C‑221 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to keep victims better informed regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole.

The bill is rather short, amending four subparagraphs of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These subparagraphs in the existing act already seeks to inform victims about the offender's eligibility dates and review dates applicable in respect of temporary absences or parole; the date of an offender's release; eligibility dates and review dates applicable in respect of unescorted temporary absences or parole; and the date of such escorted or unescorted temporary absences, parole or statutory release.

The bill would therefore simply add a requirement for Correctional Service Canada to explain how the dates were determined. Section 26 and section 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already provide for certain information to be disclosed to victims and their loved ones at the victim's request. The act also allows victims to register with Correctional Service Canada or the Parole Board to obtain information about the offender.

Here is the information that can be obtained under section 26: (i) the offender's name, (ii) the offence of which the offender was convicted and the court that convicted the offender, (iii) the date of commencement and length of the sentence that the offender is serving, and (iv) eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender under this Act in respect of temporary absences or parole;

The Parole Board may also disclose the following information if it is determined that such disclosure would not have a negative impact on the safety of the public: (i) the date, if any, on which the offender is to be released on temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release, (ii) the conditions attached to the offender's temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release, (iii)...whether the offender will be in the vicinity of the victim...

Paragraphs 142(1)(a) and 142(1)(b) of the act essentially contain the same information under the heading “Disclosure of Information” in the part called “Conditional Release, Detention and Long-term Supervision”. This information therefore already includes the dates of release and absences, but no explanation as to how those dates are determined.

In some cases, it is quite simple. Statutory release, for example, usually occurs after two-thirds of the sentence has been served, with exemptions contained in the legislation. Explaining the date would therefore potentially amount to simply explaining the law and how the date was determined under the law.

In other cases, the situation may be more complex. Take, for example, a man serving a life sentence who is given a one-hour escorted absence to attend his mother's funeral. In this case, the victim would need to be given the dates but also told how the date was determined. For example, the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board could explain that it was determined that the offender could be granted an escorted temporary absence of 45 minutes, which they would consider sufficient to cover the funeral service, and then be escorted back to prison.

Explaining how the dates were determined would help victims understand and hopefully alleviate some of their fears. Victims and victims' families often find it difficult to get answers about the release of inmates. The Bloc Québécois does not understand why it is so hard for victims to get answers about the release of inmates, especially when they are abusers, rapists or murderers. Victims and their loved ones already have access to the offender's eligibility dates and review dates, and other information about the offender's release.

Although its intent is commendable, the bill still raises some questions. Will the explanations be technical and concise, or will they be adapted to victims and their loved ones?

For example, the law is complex, not to mention the law, especially if information is not conveyed to victims in an appropriate way, considering that most of them have no legal training. We must therefore ensure that information is properly conveyed to victims in an appropriate format.

Then there is the fact that, under the existing act and under Bill C‑221, victims have to request information. The victim has to register first with the Correctional Service or the Parole Board, instead of receiving information automatically, which leads us to believe that some victims may not be fully aware of their rights.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes proposes that the National Office for Victims contact victims or their loved ones as soon as a federal sentence is handed down to inform them of their rights and the resources available.

In conclusion, we know that all of the parties supported the mirror bill, Bill C‑320, during the last Parliament. I seen no reason why we would not do the same for Bill C‑221.

Protecting Victims Act

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to rise as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and speak to the government's Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.

All of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who depend on us to do their bidding in Parliament. Canadians need us to see the challenges and dangers they face and to do our jobs to make necessary amendments to federal statutes in order to make life safer and more secure for Canadians.

It is no coincidence that we are here in Parliament. The word “Parliament” was derived from an 11th-century Old French word, parlement, which means “discussion” or “discourse”, and from the French verb parler, which means “to talk”. We spend a lot of time talking in this place because our forebears resolved to use words rather than swords and cannons to resolve disagreements, to establish consensus for common good and to deliver solutions for the citizens represented by every member of Parliament.

Yes, Parliament can be raucous and adversarial, but we can never let the friction and heat deter us from the duties we owe the people of Canada: our duty to represent our constituents, and our duty to engage in discussion and discourse in this place, not for the sake of merely speaking or engaging in verbal scrums but to contribute to progress for the people. Constructive discussion in Parliament can certainly lead to collaboration, and this can include the governing party adopting proposals from opposition members and including those proposals in government bills, as the government has done in Bill C-16.

On September 17, 2025, just last year, I tabled my private member's bill, Bill C-221, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, disclosure of information to victims. Currently, victims of crime can request that they be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates for the temporary absence, release or parole of the offender who victimized them. My bill, Bill C-221, proposes that when the victims are provided with such dates, they are also provided with an explanation of how the dates were determined. When Canadians are victimized by crime, they often carry psychological and emotional burdens for life. My private member's bill proposes common-sense, realistic measures aimed at reducing the stress victims experience in dealing with the parole and release processes of those who have victimized them.

After six and a half years of Conservative efforts to pass these proposals into law, it is good to see that the government has finally acknowledged the merit and necessity of these proposals and included them in a government bill, Bill C-16. My bill, Bill C-221, follows three previous Conservative bills that carried the same proposal. Those bills were Bill C-466, sponsored by the Hon. Lisa Raitt in the 42nd Parliament, Bill S-219, sponsored by Senator Boisvenu in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C-320, sponsored by Dr. Colin Carrie in the 44th Parliament.

The legislative proposals of our bills are now included in a government bill, Bill C-16. They were initially developed and advocated for by Ms. Lisa Freeman of Oshawa, Ontario. Ms. Freeman suffered a tragic loss when her father was brutally murdered. Then she endured years of dealing with Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board while trying to keep track of the offender who murdered her father. Lisa Freeman's experience dealing with these government processes was painful and added to the burden she already carried.

I thank Lisa Freeman for her determination and bravery in persevering through the pain and trauma of losing her father to fight for the measures that increase respect for victims of crime navigating government processes. I am pleased that the Liberal government has finally recognized this as an issue and has chosen to prioritize my private member's bill's proposals by including them in Bill C-16. This means that much-needed changes could happen sooner for Canadians. This is a good thing.

Victims of crime and the people who advocate for them have stated for years that these measures are necessary, and I am glad the Conservative leadership has caused the government to finally adopt these proposals. What is important to me and to victims is that these measures get passed in order to ease the experience victims of crime have in dealing with corrections and parole processes.

Canadians count on parliamentarians to make Parliament work, and until the government passes Bill C-16, I will continue to work to move my private member's bill toward completion, because these changes are worth pursuing through all avenues possible.

Bill C-16 is an omnibus bill, and I think some proposed measures are long overdue but other clauses of the bill require amendments to be strengthened to deliver results and relief for Canadians facing real dangers. Here are some hard facts on the dangers Canadians, including my constituents in Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, are facing: Since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up almost 76% and violent crime is up almost 55%.

Bill C-16 has incorporated other pieces of Conservative legislation that was drafted. Bill C-16 proposes to ban deepfakes of intimate partners, and this would help keep Canadians, especially women, safe from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared.

Conservatives are glad that in Bill C-16 the government has adopted the proposal of Bill C-216, which was sponsored by the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill. Bill C-16 also incorporates Bill C-216 provisions for establishing mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material. This would help protect our children from despicable crimes and exploitation.

In Bill C-16, the government has also answered calls from my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose private member's bill proposed that murder of an intimate partner be automatically treated as first-degree murder. I am glad that the Liberal government has heard the calls of my hon. colleagues and incorporated these proposals in Bill C-16.

These parts of the government's Bill C-16 are long overdue and are relevant to Canadians today. However, other components of Bill C-16 miss the mark because they simply do not go far enough to be relevant to the problems Canadians face today. For instance, Bill C-16 proposes to allow judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code, other than murder and treason.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for crimes such as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violence with firearms, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and more.

I call on the government to hear the voices of Canadians who are living with a 55% increase in violent crime and want peace and security restored in their communities. Bill C-16's proposed elimination of mandatory sentence requirements must be split and removed from the bill so that it may be thoroughly debated and allow the solid parts of Bill C-16 to proceed expeditiously for the safety of Canadians.

I call on the government to listen once again to the voices of Canadians who oppose light sentences for serious and violent crimes, and split the bill so we can advance the solid parts and work on the elements that need to be reworked.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in support of this bill. It holds deep meaning for victims of violent crime and for me, personally, as a resident and the newest member of Parliament for Oshawa.

Bill C-221 builds upon years of advocacy for greater transparency and fairness in Canada's parole system. It also continues the work of my predecessor, the former member of Parliament for Oshawa, Dr. Colin Carrie, who introduced this initiative as Bill C-320 in the 44th Parliament. It is inspired by the strength and determination of Oshawa resident, and my good friend, Lisa Freeman. I had the privilege of working with Dr. Carrie during the time when he was advancing this bill. We listened to victims and pushed for a justice system that acknowledges their needs. I saw how deeply Lisa's experiences and advocacy shaped this legislation.

Bill C-221 is rooted in real stories and responds directly to real failures that have left victims without clear information, timely notice or the transparency they deserve. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, for reintroducing this crucial legislation and providing me the honour of seconding it.

To understand why this bill matters, we have to understand its origin. More than 30 years ago, my community of Oshawa was shaken by the murder of Roland Slingerland. I remember that time. I was a young teenager, and the shock of his death spread quickly through the city. People talked about it in school, in the neighbourhood and around the dinner table. It was one of those moments that made the entire community stop and confront the reality of violence in our midst.

Roland was a caretaker at a rooming house. He was a navy veteran and a father of four daughters. He was murdered while trying to protect a woman fleeing domestic violence. The axe murderer who killed him had gone looking for his estranged girlfriend, and Roland refused to reveal where she was living. He did what any decent person would do. He put someone else's safety first, and for that courageous act, he lost his life.

What our community later learned was even harder to process. The man who murdered Roland Slingerland was on parole at the time for previous offences. He had already been released back into the community. The system that was supposed to safeguard the public did not do so. It failed Roland and his family, and the impact of that failure has lasted more than three decades.

For Lisa, that impact did not end with the trial. She has spent most of her adult life navigating the parole process, not by choice but because every decision made about the offender directly affects her sense of safety and her family's well-being.

However, time and time again, she was left without the information she needed. Major decisions were made without her knowledge. Transfers happened without notice. Security levels changed with no explanation. Hearing dates shifted unpredictably. Too often, the reasons behind these decisions were never provided at all. At times, she was shut out of the process completely, except Lisa refused to stay silent.

Many Canadians believe that, when a judge hands down a life sentence with no parole for 25 years, the meaning is clear, but for victims and their families, the reality is far more complicated. There are multiple forms of conditional release, multiple review stages and multiple opportunities for offenders to return to the community, sometimes years earlier than the public expects or the sentence implies.

When victims are not given the information they need, this complexity becomes overwhelming and damaging, and it forces families to relive trauma again and again. This is what Bill C-221 addresses. The current mandate under the Parole Board of Canada is that it is able to provide certain information to registered victims, but this practice is inconsistent today. Victims do not always receive timely or adequate information. They are left with vague dates, incomplete updates and no understanding of how decisions were made. This is not a minor administrative issue. It is a systematic failure that has caused real harm.

This bill would strengthen the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by requiring, by law, that when the Parole Board provides information about eligibility dates or review dates for temporary absences, releases or parole, it must include an explanation of how those dates were determined.

Victims would no longer receive information without context. They would no longer be forced to interpret a system that feels deliberately opaque. They would receive clear reasoning so they can understand what is happening, prepare for what is coming and participate meaningfully in the process as they wish. For victims, this is not symbolic; it is practical and essential. It would provide predictability where there has been stress and uncertainty. The bill recognizes that victims are not observers on the sidelines; they are people deeply affected by each step of the parole process, and they deserve to be treated with dignity.

What is also important is the overwhelming support the bill has earned. The previous version, Bill C-320, passed unanimously in the House. It passed unanimously at committee. Every party in the House supported it. Independent senators supported it. Victims' rights organizations across Canada also voiced their support because they recognized that transparency in the parole process is essential to restoring trust. The bill was as close to becoming law as possible before the government prorogued Parliament so that the Liberals could hold a leadership race. However, it made it all the way to third reading in the Senate. The consensus was clear across political lines, across both chambers and among those who work directly with victims every day. Today, with Bill C-221, we have the chance to complete that work. We have a chance to take a bill that has already earned national agreement and turn it into real protection for victims and their families.

The bill before us would not fix every problem with our parole system; much more needs to be done to ensure that victims' rights are upheld and that their participation is respected at every stage. However, it is a significant step. It is targeted and reasonable. It addresses a specific gap that has caused hardship and fear for too many Canadians. Above all, it would ensure that the experiences faced by Lisa and her family are not repeated.

Lisa never sought recognition or public attention. She simply refused to accept a system that repeatedly disregarded her. She supports other victims. She has written books; she holds workshops and vigils, and she continually pushes for transparency so that no one else will have to suffer what her family endured. Lisa's father showed courage that day when he protected someone in danger. Today, she carries that courage forward in her advocacy for victims, and the bill reflects her determination to create a better path for future victims. It will not change what she went through, but she hopes that others will be able to go through the parole process without the same harm and hurt that she did.

Bill C-221 is a testament to what can be achieved when victims speak and when lawmakers listen. It shows what is possible when a community refuses to let injustice stand unchallenged. The bill is ready to become law. Victims deserve information they can rely on, and they deserve a system that treats them with respect. The bill would deliver a simple and necessary change that will finally give victims transparency where there has only been disregard.

I urge Parliament to finish the work that began years ago, make this protection permanent and pass the bill through all stages quickly and unanimously.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to do so earlier, but I would like to once again commend my colleague for introducing this bill. After listening to all the speeches, I can see that members largely agree: Victims have rights, including the right to information.

The bill that our colleague is proposing is almost a carbon copy of another bill, Bill C‑320, which passed all legislative stages in the House and in committee but unfortunately died on the Order Paper. I would say that the bill before us today is part of a series of laws or regulations that aim to modernize the entire parole process by imposing certain conditions. It is high time that we focused on victims and their rights when someone has committed a horrible crime against a loved one.

The summary of the bill reads as follows:

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.

It may seem simple. A family that has experienced a terrible tragedy will learn the conditions, know why the offender is allowed to be released, why a certain date was chosen and when it will take effect. Some families need this information in order to complete their grieving process or even to feel safe. As my colleague also said, some families do not want to know. Not knowing may be a coping mechanism or part of their grieving process.

However, like my colleague, we believe it is important to review all the elements mentioned in his bill, such as the eligibility and review dates applicable to temporary absences or parole. It is also important to review the date on which an offender is to be released on temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release. The eligibility and review dates applicable to unescorted temporary absences or parole must also be reviewed. The bill also requires that the date of escorted or unescorted temporary absences or parole be communicated.

Bill C-221 creates an obligation to communicate with the family to provide additional information about the abuser. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees with that. We agree that victims who want and need help must be informed of the reasons for these dates. Some families or loved ones could even be given access to this information without necessarily making a request. We could ensure that these people receive the information automatically, but remove them from the list if they are not interested in receiving it.

The goal is to simplify a process and a task that often falls on the victims' shoulders. If they do not want to receive the information, they could say so, while everyone who wants it would receive it automatically. The idea is to create a very clear process, because the way that all this information is being managed for the victims seems rather inconsistent.

Here is an example that happened recently in Quebec. The family members of a victim asked for more information about the release of the criminal who murdered their daughter. I am talking about 17-year-old Brigitte Serre, who was stabbed 72 times during an armed robbery at a gas station in Saint‑Léonard in 2006. The person who committed the crime, Sébastien Simon, had his first parole hearing. The family testified against his release.

A few years later, the family learned that a hearing would soon be held to determine whether the prisoner could be granted escorted release, for example, but they were not informed until after the fact. The family learned several months later that the inmate had received permission to leave prison and even work up to 40 hours a week at a community organization, without them being informed, without their knowledge. The family condemned this situation and wanted to know why they had only been informed after the fact.

The bill introduced by my Conservative colleague would enable families to seek redress and would prevent what Brigitte Serre's family went through in Quebec from happening again. Basically, it seeks to require the Correctional Service of Canada to document and explain why a prisoner was released on a given date and what assessment that decision was based on.

Of course, under the current legislation, some information is communicated to the families, but no details are shared regarding dates. Families are asking for that information to be shared with them. Some even need it. If an inmate manages to get a hearing and convince their social workers and caseworkers that they are following a rehabilitation process, with an action plan in place to help them gradually reintegrate into society, it is important to communicate that to the family.

The bill's demands are fairly simple, but there are still some questions. It establishes an important principle, that of informing the victims' families, but it does not really specify how this information should be communicated to families. Should it come in writing? Should it be accompanied by some form of support? For example, if a family receives a call or an email informing them that their child's killer has been granted temporary absences as of a certain date, could that retraumatize them?

The Bloc Québécois wants to know how this information will be communicated to families, especially since our political party believes that they should be supported when learning the reasons for release. We must acknowledge that no victim's family will be happy to learn that the murderer or the person who killed their loved one will be granted escorted or unescorted temporary absences before 25 years have passed. That is why we are concerned about how this news will be announced to the families.

I do not know if we will have the opportunity to discuss this at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I think that part is essential. I think we can all agree that victims have a right to information. Now we will have to discuss how that information is shared. We are somewhat concerned about how Correctional Service Canada will make this requirement part of its procedures, especially given the staffing shortage, and about how this information will be handled and communicated to families.

That said, we know that victims' associations have been vigorously advocating for the information to be given to families and victims. We agree with all of their requests. I encourage my colleague to push for his bill because we definitely want the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study it. This would give the committee the tremendous privilege of contributing to amending an act to make it more compassionate, more considerate and more respectful of victims' right to information.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

moved that Bill C-221, 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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and I thank my constituents for the trust they have vested in me to represent our region, which is blessed with a rich history and endless splendour. Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies would not be the great region it is if not for the citizens who call the region home. I am honoured to be their voice and advocate here in Parliament.

Canadians invest their trust in us, and they expect and deserve a return on that investment. They look to Parliament and every member of this House and the other chamber to work collaboratively to deliver meaningful results for Canadians.

What kinds of results do Canadians want? When I speak to the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, I am told that citizens want affordability, opportunity, conservation, safety and security. For safety and security, Canadians want laws and regulations that effectively denounce and deter crimes, and Parliament has work to do in this regard.

Our fellow Canadians also tell me that they want transparency and accountability in government. When Parliament or a government entity makes a decision that directly impacts the lives of citizens, citizens appropriately expect transparency and accountability in how the decision was determined. Governments are meant to be led and administered by representatives chosen by Canadians. It is important that Canadians be provided explanations of why decisions are made and how they are made.

Transparency and accountability are core principles of our democracy, and the bill we debate today seeks to enhance the application of these essential principles, specifically for the benefit of those victimized by crime.

I am honoured to be the sponsor of Bill C-221, which contains proposals identical to those in bills introduced in previous Parliaments. The proposals in this bill were proposed in the 44th Parliament by my friend and former colleague Dr. Colin Carrie, who served as the hon. member for Oshawa for over 20 years. Dr. Carrie was inspired to champion the proposals in our bills by the tragic events and pained experiences of a constituent of his, Ms. Lisa Freeman, whose father Roland Slingerland was brutally killed in Oshawa in 1991.

Ms. Freeman's experiences were truly tragic. From the murder of her father, numerous bail procedures and the eventual release of her father's murderer, Ms. Freeman experienced years of stress, anxiety and pain, some of which was caused by her uncertainty over the status of the man who murdered her father.

We as parliamentarians must examine the experiences of victims of crime like Ms. Freeman and resolve to support legislative proposals that reduce the stress, anxiety and other burdens that victims of crime live with.

Another hon. colleague, the new member for Oshawa, worked on Dr. Carrie's bill in the last Parliament as a member of his staff and will also be speaking to Bill C-221 today. I understand she will provide more context of Ms. Freeman's experiences, which were the original inspiration for the proposals in this bill. I thank her for her contributions and for being the seconder of the bill today.

In the last Parliament, Dr. Carrie's Bill C-320 progressed to a very advanced stage in the legislative process, with unanimous support at all stages of review by both Houses. In the last Parliament, Bill C-320 passed committee review in the other place and was reported back to that chamber December 17, 2024, which was the last day the 44th Parliament was convened. When the 44th Parliament was dissolved last March, Bill C-320 died on the Order Paper, ending its path, but I have chosen to bring these proposals back because they need to be passed.

The bill we are examining today, Bill C-221, contains the same proposals as Bill C-320 did in the last Parliament. I hope that members of both Houses may once again support these worthy proposals and work collaboratively and unanimously, as we did in the last Parliament, to move them to completion in this 45th Parliament.

Bill C-221 is aimed at supporting victims of crime. As such, it is important to expand on what is meant when we speak of victims of crime.

This bill seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That act defines a victim as follows:

an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission of the offence;

By this definition, a victim is not just the person or persons who have directly suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of a crime. People who suffer emotional harm are also victims.

When a criminal offence results in the taking of a life, yes, the individual whose life is taken is a victim, but the suffering mentioned in the definition of a victim in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not end with the one who loses their life. The suffering includes those who experience emotional harm because of criminal behaviour. They are also victims.

This bill is important because it proposes to increase a victim's understanding of corrections and conditional release. Under current federal law, victims who share their contact details with the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada and who fulfill the legal definition of victim are entitled to specific information about those responsible for harming them. This information includes key dates indicating when offenders may be eligible for review and release. Should this bill pass, it would amend the law to ensure that victims know when offenders could be released and, importantly, are provided the reasons for how officials determined the eligibility dates.

Victims of crime and their families seek clarity and transparency. They deserve to have their voices heard within the justice system and to know the reasons behind release or parole. By providing victims of offenders more advanced information about crucial eligibility and review dates, this bill is aimed at providing the clarity and transparency that victims seek. This legislation also lets victims know that we, as their elected representatives, hear them.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposals in this bill were inspired by and advocated for by Ms. Lisa Freeman, who was victimized when her father was brutally murdered. Ms. Freeman suffered the exact kind of emotional harm that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act cites in defining the word “victim”.

Crimes, especially those that cause the loss of human life, have a ripple effect, like how a stone thrown in a pond creates ripples that emanate from the point of impact outward in all directions. There are many Canadians whose lives have been forever changed by emotional harm caused by criminal acts, especially crimes that take the life of a loved one.

I am one of those Canadians. I have a sense of the stress, anxiety and fear that victims like Lisa Freeman, her family and others in similar situations experience when they are not provided an explanation as to why the individual who has traumatized their life forever is released. I have that sense of understanding because every time I have to drive past a local pub only a few kilometres from my home, I experience it.

It is a pub that was built by an individual who only a few years earlier had killed my brother while driving impaired. My brother Rick was 17 when he was killed 47 years ago, and it still pains me every time I drive past that place that was built by the man who killed him. My mother and father, and the rest of our family, paid the great price of losing Rick, and we never knew or understood how the person who took his life was released and seemingly continued his life as if nothing had happened. I have never spoken about this pain before, not even to family.

Across Canada there are victims of crime who live in fear of the release of the criminal who has already caused much suffering and loss, and when the release occurs, victims are not provided with the reasons for the release.

I have brought the proposals of the bill back to the current Parliament for the many victims of crime across Canada who live with the burden of being victims of crime. When the proposals of the bill were debated and examined in the last Parliament, victims' rights advocates provided compelling testimony detailing how the passage of the proposals could support victims of crime, victims who already carry burdens. In the last Parliament, MPs and senators heard the voices of victims and afforded the proposals unanimous support, which carried the proposals very close to completion.

The 44th Parliament came to an end. Now, in the 45th Parliament, every parliamentarian is faced with a new opportunity to once again listen to the voices of victims and to move the proposals forward for the benefit of victims of crime in all 343 constituencies represented in the House.

I wholeheartedly believe in the bill, and I hope that every member of the House, the members of the committee that would study the bill, and the members of the other chamber will once again recognize the merit of this bill, Bill C-221. In this 45th Parliament, let us hear the voices of victims and act on their behalf, as we did in the 44th Parliament.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the outstanding constituents of Oshawa and to speak to the question of privilege. I just want to take the opportunity as well to wish members of the House and my constituents in Oshawa a very Merry Christmas. I do not know whether I will have an opportunity to rise in the House again before the break, but certainly we need some more Christmas spirit around here. I think the best Christmas gift we could get the people of Oshawa would be a carbon tax election, because the government is not worth the cost or the corruption.

My speech this evening is going to be more or less about censorship, disinformation and misinformation. The Liberal government is moving down a spiral of authoritarianism. It is a very deceptive government that is definitely not about transparency as it originally promised it would be. It is a government using every single legislative tool to censor and to control.

Around the world, government censorship is constantly being used to silence opposing opinions, suppress transparency and accountability, and consolidate power. We see this form of government censorship in several countries: Russia, China, North Korea and, yes, Canada. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, we are witnessing a new level of government censorship more than ever before in Canada. The issue today is about contempt of Parliament and about fraud.

The government's censorship threatens the very foundations of our democracy. Without the ability to demand production of documents, speak our mind, express our views and challenge the status quo, we are left with nothing but the hollow illusion of freedom. The government censorship we are witnessing here today is not about protecting Canadians from harm or ensuring public safety. Instead it is about silencing dissent, shutting down debate and consolidating power. It is about covering up corruption and fraud.

With respect to the question of privilege, we are addressing government censorship regarding the failure to produce documents ordered by the House on the scandal involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada, otherwise known as the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund. However, while the power of the House is supposed to be supreme, the Prime Minister's personal department, the Privy Council Office, decided to execute the order by telling departments to send in documents and censor them through redaction to cover up corruption and to cover up fraud.

This form of government censorship completely breaches a member's privilege because the order from the House did not say to redact. The government has opted to defy the House and to censor information in the SDTC documents at every single step of the way, as it does not want Canadians to know that through the green slush fund, $400 million has gone to Liberal insiders. It may be twice that amount because the Auditor General could not complete the full audit.

The scandal as well, it is really important to recognize, compromises two current cabinet ministers and one former cabinet minister. I would like to say that it is a surprise that the government would behave in this manner, but based on the government's track record, government censorship and fraud are nothing but the expected. In other words, for the government, it is business as usual.

Perhaps this is a very good time for my colleagues to talk a little bit about a history lesson. Remember the Liberal sponsorship scandal? The last time the Liberals were in power, they funnelled $40 million to their friends and orchestrated a sophisticated kickback scheme. Then they got caught at fraud, corruption and cover-ups.

The best predictor of future behaviour, I would suggest, is past behaviour. Is the SDTC scandal part of the latest Liberal kickback scandal? Where did the money go? This one scandal is at least 10 times greater than the sponsorship scandal. It is another in a long list of scandals that the Liberals are trying to cover up through censorship.

I should probably define what I mean by censorship. Censorship is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” I would suggest “politically unacceptable” is why the Liberal-NDP government champions censorship. I should probably define a few other terms. Misinformation is “the inadvertent spread of false information without intent to harm”. Disinformation is “false information designed to mislead others and is deliberately spread with the intent to confuse fact and fiction.”

Another word is a controversial new term, malinformation, used to describe the NDP-Liberal government, a “term for information which is based on fact, but removed from its original context in order to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” In other words, malinformation is “true but inconvenient” for the government and its narrative.

Under the guise of combatting disinformation and hate speech, the government has implemented policies that give it the power to silence voices, censor information and withhold documents that do not conform to its own woke ideological agenda. This censorship is spreading across Canada, through our institutions, not just here in the House of Commons.

We saw this last week when independent journalist Ezra Levant was arrested for simply filming and reporting on a pro-Hamas rally occurring in his own neighbourhood. Instead of arresting provocative pro-Hamas supporters who spewed hate, celebrating genocide while chanting “from the river to the sea”, an independent member of the press was arrested for simply doing his job, arrested by the very police who have sworn to protect his charter rights.

We wonder why Canadians are questioning whether this is the country they grew up in. When a Jewish man gets arrested by Toronto police in his own neighbourhood while supporting a vigil for families whose loved ones were massacred and kidnapped on October 7, while members of the hateful mob are allowed to continue their mockery of the victims' suffering, we have to ask ourselves why the government condones this hateful behaviour, censors first-hand accounts of cruel anti-Semitism and supports police who discriminate. When governments and our institutions condone this behaviour, it is as if they give a stamp of approval, and that definitely is not okay.

What about the government's history of pushing through authoritative legislation? Let us take a look at that. Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, according to the NDP-Liberals, aims to modernize the Broadcasting Act. However, it harms Canadian digital creators by limiting their services and ability to reach global audiences. It also allows the government boundless powers to regulate digital content and gives it the authority to control what Canadians can and cannot access online.

This is a direct assault on the freedoms of expression and access to information that have flourished in this digital age. Instead of letting Canadians choose for themselves what to watch and listen to, the government seeks to impose its own narrative, prioritizing state-approved content over independent voices and diverse viewpoints. Our young, bright Canadian content creators are being stifled. If other jurisdictions also decide to put forward legislation like this, it will mean Canadian content will be a lower priority for the rest of the world and that could damage our entertainment exports.

The government's censorship does not stop there. Bill C-18, the Online News Act, also allows the government to get in the way of what people can see and share online. This bill requires Internet companies to distribute royalties to newspapers whose content is shared on a site. It demonstrates the government choosing to side with large corporate media while shutting down small, local and independent news, as well as giving far too much power to the government to regulate without limitation. As a result, local and independent media outlets that might challenge the government's narrative are left vulnerable, and those that conform are rewarded.

Common-sense Conservatives believe we need to find a solution in which Canadians can continue to freely access news content online, in addition to fairly compensating Canadian news outlets. However, when we offered amendments to the bill that would address these several issues, the NDP and the Liberals voted them down.

Bill C-63 is another testament to this government's continuous commitment to censorship. The online harms act would create costly censorship bureaucracy that would not make it easier for people experiencing legitimate online harassment to access justice. Instead, it would act as a regulatory process that would not start for years and would happen behind closed doors where big-tech lobbyists could pull the strings.

The common-sense Conservative alternative to the online harms act is Bill C-412, proposed by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. It would keep Canadians safe online without infringing on their civil liberties. It would give Canadians more protections online through existing regulators and the justice system, and would outline a duty of care for online operators to keep kids safe online while prohibiting a digital ID and giving parents more tools.

For another outrageous example of withholding documents and censoring information, let us not forget the cover-up at the Winnipeg lab. The Liberals allowed scientists loyal to the Chinese Communist Party to work at our most secure lab. The Liberals gave them a Canadian taxpayer-funded salary and allowed them to send dangerous pathogens back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they work on gain-of-function research. When exposed, the Liberals, whom we know admire the basic dictatorship of China, let these scientists escape the country without proper investigation. When Parliament asked for these documents, the Liberals actually took their own Liberal Speaker to court and then censored our ability to disclose those documents by calling an early election. We still have not found out what happened there.

On top of censoring Parliament, let us not forget about the NDP-Liberal government's track record of censoring individual expression. We have seen countless individuals, physicians, scientists and organizations being punished for simply speaking out against the current government's policies. The government froze bank accounts. People were labelled as promoting hate speech and disinformation, or as conspiracy theorists, racists and misogynists, by their own Prime Minister.

We were warned that this could happen. In one of his final interviews, esteemed scientist Carl Sagan noted, “We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces.”

Who is running science and technology in a democracy if the people do not know anything about it? We have seen this technocracy weaponized by governments during the COVID pandemic through various unjustifiable mandates and government censorship surrounding medical research. Now, the new head of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, Marty Makary, has said on the record that the greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic was the United States government, and it is the same here in Canada.

The weaponization of medical research is not just an American issue. Dr. Regina Watteel, a Ph.D. in statistics, has written, an excellent exposé on the rise of Canadian hate science. Her books expose how the Liberal government, through repeated grants from CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, hired Dr. David Fisman, a researcher for hire from the University of Toronto medical school, to manipulate COVID statistics to support a failing government policy.

He was touted as an expert, but his only expertise was manipulating statistics to support government overreach. His sham studies were used to justify some of the most draconian COVID policies in the world and were quoted extensively by the Liberal-friendly media. Any criticism of Fisman's fraudulent statistical analysis has been shut down and censored. Again, this is a Canadian example of a result that Carl Sagan warned us about decades ago: the fall into technocracy, where government-sanctioned expert opinion trumps hard scientific data.

Sadly, the government's censorship has now extended to our judicial systems and other institutions, including the Parole Board of Canada.

While the Liberal justice minister brags about appointing 800 judges out of the 957 positions, we can see the soft-on-crime consequences of his woke ideological agenda. We saw an outrageous example of this last week when the French and Mahaffy families desired to participate in the parole hearing of their daughters' brutal murderer. Locally, Lisa Freeman, a constituent in Oshawa and the inspiration behind my private member's bill, Bill C-320, was recently informed by the Parole Board of Canada that the axe murderer who brutally murdered her father while on parole at the time will be subject to a closed-door review.

In the past, Ms. Freeman has been denied her rights as a registered victim and, as a result, has been continually revictimized, only this time by the very institutions that should be putting her mental health and safety and the safety of victims first. Attending and meaningfully participating in an in-person hearing to deliver a victim statement is not only fair and reasonable, but well within Ms. Freeman's rights, as per the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights under the right of participation. It is crucial that Ms. Freeman be able to express the emotional pain and turmoil the murder of her father caused and continues to cause. She also deserves to be able to gauge for herself the accountability of the offender. This is something she has previously been unable to ascertain.

The brutal murder of her father has not only vastly impacted her life and the lives of her loved ones, but also continues to cause post-traumatic stress, which is exacerbated by the complete lack of care by the Parole Board of Canada for her rights as a victim. It is completely unacceptable that Ms. Freeman is once again being censored by the Parole Board of Canada as they plan to make a closed-door decision regarding the offender's continuation of day parole and full parole without holding a hearing.

It is shameful that the NDP-Liberal government seems to care more about censoring victims than keeping repeat offenders off the streets. What they do not understand is that government censorship does not fulfill the requirement of protecting people from harm in society. Instead, government censorship is the harm to society. It threatens our fundamental democratic values, which we should be championing. To quote the famous author, George Orwell, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

The Marxist communist Vladimir Lenin once said, “Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?”

More and more we are seeing these quotes and Marxist ideas implemented under the NDP-Liberal government. We must stand up for the idea that truth is not something that can be determined by the state. We must insist that Canadian citizens, not censoring politicians, should be the ones who decide what information they believe, what opinions and values they hold and with what content they engage. We must continue to reject the government's idea that censorship is the solution to every problem, though it may be the solution to their problems, and instead embrace the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of conscience are part of the solution of a more free and prosperous Canadian society.

Justice Potter Stewart said, “Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritative regime”. That is what we see with the tired, divisive, Liberal government of today. Canadians have indeed lost confidence in the weak Prime Minister and the corrupt Liberal Party. If we allow government to censor the rights of the people's elected representatives and the Internet; squash individuality, opinions and expression; and curtail our freedom of movement, then indeed the Marxists have won the ideological war.

In closing, Canada is not the greatest country in the world simply because I say it is. Canada is the greatest country in the world because we care and fight for our fundamental, democratic values. We have a history of that people from around the world in other countries would love to have, so these values must not be taken for granted. When we, in Oshawa, sing our national anthem, we take “The True North strong and free” to heart.

The current SDTC scandal, with the refusal of the NDP-Liberal government to release the requested unredacted documents to the people's representatives, threatens the very essence of our democracy, which generations of Canadians died to protect and must be respected and fought for. At our cenotaphs, service clubs and in the sacred House of Commons, the people's voices will be heard.

Canadians are listening today, and they have a core identity. We are proud Canadians. We are not the first post-national state. When people ask us which country we admire the most, we do not say that we admire the basic dictatorship of China. We say we admire Canada.

Hopefully, like most things that criticize the government, such as this speech, the Liberal-NDPs do not decide to censor it. Let us see what they have to say.

Victims' Rights

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, repeatedly, we are witnessing the NDP-Liberal government's troubling tendency to prioritize the rights of criminals over those of victims. That is why I introduced the pro-victims' rights bill, Bill C-320, in March 2023. Thankfully, the bill passed unanimously through the House and is now at the Senate committee stage.

Lisa Freeman, a constituent of Oshawa and the inspiration behind Bill C-320, recently learned that the axe murderer who brutally murdered her father while on parole will be subject to a closed-door review by the Parole Board of Canada, with no hearing. Ms. Freeman's rights have been completely disregarded under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and she has continually been denied the rights afforded to registered victims, leading to repeated revictimization, not by the perpetrator, but by the very institutions that should be safeguarding her well-being.

If the NDP-Liberal government refuses to recognize the need to prioritize victims' rights over those of criminals, it is time for an election so that a Conservative—

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.

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.

Oral Questions

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have all agreed on the importance of victims' rights. Today I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to adopt the following motion: I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act on disclosure of information to victims—