Bill C-221

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]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague. Sometimes, especially when we sit on Fridays, we study private members' bills that are based on deeply moving personal experiences. I thank my colleague for introducing this bill and I assure him of the Bloc Québécois's support.

My question is this. Would it not be possible to go a step further in the bill and stipulate that families be automatically registered to receive information, rather than the opposite, where the victim's family has to request the information? Does my colleague not think it would be simpler if it were automatic?

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

Madam Speaker, that was a thoughtful question. I believe that having the release of the information automatically happen might also impose on victims' rights, or that some victims may not want to know. To have it mandatorily imposed on them may cause more problems for some. I do not think it would be a great burden for them to sign up, and if the bill passes, at least they would be provided with the details of the reasons for the decisions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will start off by complimenting my colleague across the way. I know that at times it is very difficult to share a personal story. With the loss of a brother, Rick in this case, we can only imagine and have a great deal of sympathy, but unless one has lived through the experience, it is difficult to have that empathy.

I do want to express my condolences. I could see the passion the member speaks of, and I respect that.

We need to consider victims. I appreciate the legislation the member has brought to the House, and I look forward to its passage to committee. If the member wants to add anything else to his general comments, I would appreciate that too.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments, and I appreciate everyone here today, and the people back home, listening.

I am not speaking just for myself; I am speaking for the thousands of victims out there. I can manage. Members can tell it is emotional for me, but there are others who, I think, struggle with it far more than I do. It is for them that we as parliamentarians must see the bill through to completion as soon as possible.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my heart is filled with emotion as I rise here today to speak to Bill C‑221, especially after listening to my colleague earlier. This bill is not just about tinkering with the wording, regulations and provisions. As the House will hear from my remarks, this is about restoring some sincerity in how we treat human beings. I see this as something deeply human. I am talking about the way our justice system recognizes—or, unfortunately, sometimes forgets—those who have suffered the most, whom I will refer to as victims.

When we hear from victims, they are not asking for any sort of privilege. They are asking for something much more essential: to be seen. They are asking us to listen to them. They are asking for respect. Too often, they tell us that they feel invisible in a system they do not understand, a system where decisions that affect them are made without explanation, without context and sometimes even without warning. That is precisely what this bill seeks to remedy.

Many victims feel hurt the most when they feel left out of the processes that determine what happens to the offender who has devastated their lives. Unfortunately, finding out that an offender is eligible for a temporary absence or parole without understanding how these calculations are made feels like an additional punishment for the victims. It is a punishment that we can and should avoid.

Let us be clear. Our institutions, like Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, do important, sensitive work. They support more than 9,000 victims a year. They provide a portal for victims, as well as information letters, help lines and personalized support. I want to highlight this work, which is neither simple nor obvious. Despite these efforts, something fundamental is still missing, and that thing that is missing most of all is understanding. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about people. We are talking about the victims' understanding not just of the dates but of the meaning behind the dates; not just of the decisions that were made but of the logic behind those decisions. Understanding is not just an administrative detail. Understanding means being able to breathe again. Understanding means being less afraid of the unexpected. Understanding means regaining some control in a life that has been turned upside down.

The purpose of Bill C-221 is exactly that: to explain to victims how and why certain key dates are calculated and what this means for them in practical terms. It is a simple but profoundly fair approach. It does not challenge the courts' decisions. It does not compromise public safety. It does not hinder correctional professionals. It reinforces a fundamental principle: the dignity of individuals, the dignity of human beings, the dignity of victims.

We know that this issue transcends party lines. This is not about politics; it is about compassion and humanity. Behind every case, there is a story. Today, we heard our colleague talk about one such story. When we listen to the details of that story, we can truly understand the depth of the anger that victims and their loved ones may feel. That is where a bill must come from. It comes from a feeling of being neglected, of not being listened to, and of not understanding exactly what is going on.

That is what inspired this bill: a family's suffering. Naturally, I share that point of view because it is vital that we do something about such situations. It is our duty to do so, for the spouse living with a silence that will never go away, for the family retraumatized by every court update, decision and deadline. This bill will not fix everything, but it is a concrete step forward toward a system that is better at recognizing victims and their experiences.

When we give victims information that is clear, transparent, understandable and written in plain language, we are not just explaining our calculations; we are sending the message that their suffering matters and their safety matters. Their presence in the legal process is not incidental, and it is not a number; it is essential.

I truly believe that a justice system is stronger when it protects those who have been made vulnerable. That is why I believe that this bill is a necessary step toward building a fairer, more humane and more dignified system for every Canadian.

It may be a small step for the legislative apparatus, but it is a huge step for every victim who, as of tomorrow, will finally get the explanation they have waited so long for. I encourage all members to participate in the study of this bill and to vote in favour of it.

[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.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will start off by picking up on the point that was just made about the support for this private member's bill within the chamber, which I perceive as overwhelmingly positive. As members know, there is a limited number of private members' bills and motions that will ultimately hit the floor of the House of Commons.

There are two things that I would point out about the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. Number one, we need to recognize that an hon. member is very fortunate if they can get a bill passed through the House. A little bit relies on luck, because we have to be part of the draw. If we look at it, the number of the bill is Bill C-221, which tells us that the member has been fortunate to get the bill drawn.

Number two, when one is provided that opportunity, there is a multitude of issues one could bring to the floor of the House. The member has obviously prioritized this as a very important issue. We have seen governments of different political stripes talk about victims. We now have a private member who has brought forward legislation, and he shared a very intimate story. I always appreciate when members have the courage to share a personal story, because it is a very difficult thing to do. It made me reflect on an incident from a number of years ago.

I was at someone's home. Her son was missing, and she had the dreaded knock on the door from local law enforcement. She was told that her son's body had been found. There were the emotions that were tied into that, how she collapsed and how she had the courage to go through a process that is very complicated and exceptionally frustrating. One must imagine the emotions that someone has to live through to really appreciate why it is so important that, when we talk about legislation, we must incorporate the victims of crime.

That is how I see Bill C-221, which is a piece of legislation that ultimately has wide support, not only here in the chamber but, as has been pointed out by my friend across the way, in all sectors of society. I believe that it has that support because people can understand the rationale and the need to see it ultimately pass. I am anticipating that we will take a look at the need not only to be informed but also to have an explanation follow. For example, there could be an explanation for why a parole hearing has been scheduled so we have have a better appreciation of the system.

What I have found, and I used to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, is that there is a general lack of knowledge of the whole process of how our judicial system actually works. I have had the opportunity to raise it here on the floor of the House on several occasions. There is indeed federal, provincial and municipal processes, not to mention the many different stakeholders.

On the whole issue of drinking and driving, there is a phenomenal organization called MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There are so many stakeholders out there that are all trying to improve the system. A part of improving the system is through education. As complicated as it is, imagine being thrown into a position where something horrific has taken place in one's life, and one finds oneself having to go through a process that is exceptionally emotionally difficult to deal with, and one wants to find out what has happened to the perpetrator.

On the surface, the legislation comes across as very straightforward, as it is. In the question I posed, I hope it was implied that I am very supportive of this private member's bill. As has been pointed out, there was previous legislation that, for whatever reasons, did not get royal assent, along with other pieces of legislation. However, this does not take away from the efforts being presented to us today by a member highlighting the issue once again.

I reflect on Bill C-11, which is important legislation that also deals with victims' rights. It would transfer from the military courts to the civilian courts cases of sexual abuse and provide the support victims require, with the appointment of a victim's liaison officer to help facilitate the transfer.

This demonstrates very clearly that, whether it is a private member's bill or government-sponsored legislation, there is a certain expectation before us as legislators. That is ultimately to see legislation go to committee; if there is a need to make changes or amend it, then we should look at that.

I was encouraged to hear what the member from the Bloc put forward as a question, because I thought the same thing too. I wondered why information would not just be sent automatically. This seemed to make sense. What made more sense was the response. At the end of the day, I am sure there are individuals who do not necessarily want to know or to be reminded.

The true value of going to a standing committee, whether it is a private member's bill or a government bill, is that we are afforded the opportunity to have the dialogue necessary among the legislators. In a very short answer, I support the answer, and I do not necessarily support an amendment that would actually change it.

I look forward to the legislation going to committee. As has been implied, there might be some other potential amendments that could be brought forward. I would trust that any amendments would have, at least in principle, the support of the member and be within the scope of the legislation. What we ultimately hope to achieve, going through standing committees, is to have that dialogue. At the same time, and this is what I would like to highlight, we have to listen to what the stakeholders are saying. We need to listen to those interest groups and the victims themselves and at least afford the opportunity for them to be able to come to committee and possibly share their experiences, as the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies shared his personal story with the House.

I really believe that we need to do what we can as legislators to support the victims of crime. I applaud the member for bringing the bill forward.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate my colleague for introducing Bill C-221, especially in such an emotional situation. I have never experienced that, so it is hard for me to imagine, but I think victims have a right to know. The bill aims to share information about temporary absences more effectively. It is heartening to see all the parties working across party lines to support this bill for humanitarian reasons.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, or AQPV, felt that the bill was in line with its demands. In a brief, the AQPV said:

The AQPV believes it is essential to explain how decisions on eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole are made.

The AQPV wonders what form these explanations will take....

Earlier on, my colleague said, first of all, that victims need to want to receive this information. Next, this information must be communicated in a way that is clear and tailored to what victims want.

The association wrote in its brief:

...the AQPV believes that, when the sentence is handed down, the victim should already be informed of what a federal sentence consists of, as well as what the offender may be entitled to, including parole eligibility and the circumstances that may lead to it.

Correctional Service Canada documentation is “available online, including that concerning the possibility of parole”, but it is complex, even for a criminologist. The brief says that to “better support victims...it would be appropriate to provide them with a simple, clear and concise document, and to offer them a telephone meeting with a specialized resource”, if they want one, that is, “from an organization such as CSC's National Office for Victims (NOV)”, because this support “would help victims better understand the next steps and therefore make them feel safer”. This is essential.

The brief also talks about support services for victims when they receive information:

The AQPV would also like to raise the following questions:

How would the explanations of the way the dates were determined be provided to victims?

Would they be provided in writing only?

What measures would be taken to support victims when they receive this information?

In the AQPV's view, the information must

be communicated with sensitivity and humanity; and

come with the option of speaking with a person who is trained to support victims.

Even if the victim has expressed a wish to receive the information they are entitled to in writing, the victim should still be able to speak with a person who specializes in working with victims, such as someone from the NOV, who can answer any questions and explain how the dates were determined.

This is a very important bill, to say the least, and I hope everyone will support it so that it can pass as quickly as possible, so that it does not die on the Order Paper, like the previous version did.

I would like to thank my colleague once again for introducing this bill. We hope to proceed as quickly as possible.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies for sponsoring this legislation. I also wish to thank all members who have contributed or will contribute to our consideration of this bill.

As members know, this legislation has already been tabled by the members opposite in previous sessions. It is an important non-partisan bill that focuses on the rights of victims of crime and their families.

Our government firmly believes that victims across Canada deserve our compassion, respect and support. Under the current federal law, victims of crime are entitled to receive certain information about the person or persons who harmed them. This information includes eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender for temporary absences or parole. If adopted, Bill C-221 would amend the law so victims of crime would be entitled to know not only when offenders could be released, but also how officials determine these eligibility dates.

Victims of crime and their families want clarity when it comes to the justice system. They also want transparency and for their voices to be heard. Bill C-221 would give victims and their families the clarity and transparency they seek. It would help victims get information about key eligibility and review dates up front. At the same time, it in no way detracts from the rights of offenders. Their privacy and legal entitlements are in no way diminished or threatened.

The bill also aligns with the advancements we have made in this country to recognize and uphold the rights of victims of crime. Our understanding of those rights and our willingness to apply that knowledge is the work of many people and governments. Governments of all political stripes and members from both sides of the chamber have taken and supported action.

This advancement of victims' rights began in Canada in 1988. That year, the House first endorsed the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. This watershed development was soon followed by a federal law that gave victims of crime a voice at sentencing hearings. Since then, successive governments have affirmed the rights of victims based on our growing understanding of their needs. This progress is the result of Canada's evolving understanding of the rights of victims of crime and our willingness to apply that knowledge.

Bill C-221 continues these sensible, non-partisan, multi-generational advancements. The legislation makes clear that members of this House have collectively heard victims' voices and are acting on them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:34 p.m., the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 18, 2025, consideration of the motion 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.

[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.

[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.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C‑221. This bill would ensure that victims of crime are informed about the offender's parole eligibility dates, including an explanation of how those dates were determined. The bill would require the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to explain to victims how parole eligibility, review and release dates are determined.

This bill is consistent with our government's commitment to supporting victims of crime and their families. We believe that disclosing information to victims shows transparency and that their right to information about the people who harmed them must be respected at all stages of the correctional and parole process. More broadly, the proposed amendments are in keeping with our government's overall approach of putting victims' best interests at the heart of our justice system.

Moreover, our government's Bill C-16 has the same objectives as the private member's bill we are considering today, namely to broaden the scope of the information available to victims, strengthen their right to receive clear explanations, and ensure their impact statements are taken into account not only at sentencing, but also when decisions regarding parole or corrections are made.

However, the methodologies are different. Rather than repeating the same explanation requirement in several separate disclosure provisions, our Bill C-16 establishes a single, clear rule. This rule states that any disclosure to victims regarding release or eligibility for parole must include an explanation of how the applicable dates were determined. This approach applies consistently to all disclosures, reduces repetition in the law and limits the risk of inconsistencies.

The amendment broadening the scope of the information available to victims is part of one of the most significant updates to the Criminal Code in generations, which the government has undertaken with Bill C-16. This reform aims to respond to modern threats, protect victims of domestic violence, defend our children and strengthen victims' rights.

To strengthen our response to intimate partner violence, we have proposed several legislative amendments in Bill C-16. We will create a new offence to prohibit coercive or controlling behaviour toward an intimate partner. The goal is to give the justice system the tools it needs to intervene before violence escalates. We know that abuse often stems from controlling behaviours long before physical violence occurs. We must therefore criminalize coercive control in order to facilitate early intervention before intimate partner violence escalates or, in some cases, becomes fatal.

“Coercive behaviour” refers to a combination or repetition of three types of behaviour: violent behaviour, coercive sexual behaviour, or behaviour that could reasonably lead a victim to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened. For this last category, a non-exhaustive list of problematic behaviours will be developed based on the experiences of survivors. Their testimonies will help us better understand the subtle means used by abusers to exert control over their intimate partners.

Bill C‑16 also seeks to make it easier to prove criminal harassment. Currently, this offence requires the prosecution to prove that the victim feared for their safety, which often involves the victim having to testify. This puts victims in a situation where they are forced to relive traumatic events. We therefore propose replacing the requirement that the victim fear for their safety with an objective requirement, namely, whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have had such fears. That is an important distinction. It allows the prosecution to establish that criminal harassment has occurred without requiring the victim to testify.

We will also ensure that criminal harassment offences expressly include harassing behaviour committed using modern technologies. With the technological advances made in recent years, a growing number of troubling situations have come to light, specifically with respect to electronic surveillance. Victims must be fully protected from harassment committed by these means. Bill C‑16 also allows us to take action in this area.

Another major improvement is that murders committed in situations of control, hate, violence or sexual exploitation will be processed as first-degree murders, even in the absence of premeditation or deliberation. This is important because first-degree murder is the most serious type of homicide under the Criminal Code.

With these changes, femicide committed in the context of domestic violence will be treated as first-degree murder. This is a major step forward. This is important because it addresses a problem we are facing in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, women continue to account for a disproportionate number of homicide victims at the hands of an intimate partner. In 2024, according to Statistics Canada figures, nearly one in six homicide victims in Canada was killed by a spouse or intimate partner. We cannot tolerate this type of crime in our country, and we need to crack down on those who perpetrate it.

We will also tackle deepfakes. The Criminal Code already prohibits the distribution of intimate images without the individual's consent. However, this offence does not apply to sexually explicit deepfakes. As we know, with the rise of artificial intelligence, it is becoming increasingly easy to create fake images that look like real images. When these are shared, it can have devastating consequences for the people involved. As a government, we need to better protect victims against these new threats, which are based on recently developed technologies.

Another issue is that the Criminal Code currently does not have provisions against making threats to share intimate images. As I mentioned, it is a crime to share an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted, but there is no section in the Criminal Code on threatening to do so. This means that victims are less protected, especially those who are being blackmailed under the threat that intimate images or sexually explicit images will be released if the victim does not comply with the requirements of the person making the threat. We need to protect victims from this type of threat, and we will do so because it is unacceptable. This will apply to the threat of sharing real images as well as sharing deepfakes created using artificial intelligence.

Together, these reforms will help create a justice system that is quicker and earlier to act and offers stronger protection to those facing domestic violence and sexual violence, all while keeping our children safe. As legislators, we must ensure that the best interests of victims are at the heart of our justice system, and that is what we are doing through this ambitious Criminal Code reform, as set out in Bill C‑16.

I would like to mention that this reform is part of a series of bold and decisive public safety measures that our new government has put in place since taking office. With Bill C-14, we will make our bail laws stricter and impose tougher sentences for repeat and violent offenders. This bill proposes over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code. These changes make it more difficult to get bail, particularly for repeat and violent offences, and ensure that those who commit serious crimes face real consequences. That is what Canadians expect of us. We have listened and we are acting on what we have heard.

What is more, Bill C-12 seeks to strengthen security at our borders. We are making crucial changes to give law enforcement and border security the tools and resources they need to disrupt the activities of increasingly sophisticated criminal groups, including those involved in fentanyl and weapons trafficking.

We also made investments in public safety in budget 2025, specifically to hire more RCMP and border services officers. We also invested in prevention and mental health services in order to be proactive about preventing crime before it is committed. The safety of our communities is an issue that we, on this side of the House, take very seriously.

I hope we can count on the co-operation of our opposition colleagues to support us in passing our various bills on fighting crime and protecting victims, namely Bills C-16, C-14 and C-12, as well as all of the measures we are proposing in the House to make our communities safer. It is in that same spirit of co-operation that we will be supporting the private member's bill before us today.

We understand that keeping Canadians safe and protecting victims of crime must transcend party lines and should be a concern for all of us. On our side of the House, we understand that safe and resilient communities are the backbone of a strong Canada. They attract people, families, businesses and investment, and promote security and prosperity. We must take action to keep our communities safe and help protect victims of crime.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this private members' bill presented by my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Bill C-221, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding the disclosure of information to victims. The bill 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 and parole are determined.

Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in their community, and I am proud to be a member of a party that values a justice system that serves victims of crime. It follows that if an offender is being released, victims deserve to have an understanding of the decisions leading to the release of the offender and a transparent and accountable explanation of how the decision was reached.

This amendment to the law would ensure that victims would know when offenders could be released, and would then be provided the reasons for why officials determined those eligibility dates.

The contents of this bill are not new. Conservatives have proposed this amendment dating back to the 42nd Parliament. It is such a sensible amendment that it has received widespread support from all sides of this chamber.

Every one of us knows someone who has been a crime victim, unfortunately. The impacts are felt far beyond the individual, to a family, loved ones and eventually, to every community.

Respect for victims should be the standard, not the exception. In order to truly support victims, our legislation has prioritized their rights and well-being. This means giving victims a chance to prepare themselves and understand the rationale that led to the release of the criminal who abused or harmed them or one of their loved ones. This transparency has absolutely no downside at all.

We have witnessed an alarming trend with the current government that all too often, the rights of victims are overshadowed by the rights of offenders. That has to change in this country.

I will give a statistic. In my city of Saskatoon, crime rates, unfortunately, are climbing. From January 2025 to January 2026, violent crime in my city, unfortunately, is up by 13%, and property crimes in the city of Saskatoon are up year to year by 16.5%.

Over 10 years, the Liberal government has paid little or even no attention to victims in this country. I have gone on numerous ride-alongs with police and paramedics in my city. Each ride-along brings new experiences. There are so many repeat offenders that police know the criminals by name. They pick them up on a Monday afternoon, and they are released later in the day.

Two weeks ago, the release of a Saskatoon man with 70 prior convictions of voyeurism, indecent acts and trespassing at night sent shockwaves through a city of over 300,000. Kyle Hameluck was rearrested just hours after being released and was found to be breaching the conditions of his release.

I have received emails from constituents with grave concerns. In fact, I even had one who was victimized in my riding by Hameluck. It is understandable that she is horrified that this man was allowed out after an incredible 70 prior convictions. Victims should not have to relive their nightmares. He had 70 convictions, yet he was released, only to be found breaching the conditions of his release less than 24 hours later.

A known offender was set free to terrorize a community all over again, and it did not take him long to find new victims. Thankfully he is again behind bars, and I sincerely hope that when he is sentenced, his victims will one day be given the courtesy of knowing how his release was decided.

A truly just system protects its own citizens. Many victims are left in the dark when it comes to parole decisions. They deserve an explanation of how parole dates are determined. The amendment would benefit victims of crime by making the justice system in this country more transparent. Bill C-221 would stand up for the rights of victims to understand exactly how parole dates and eligibility are set for offenders.

I am proud to support the bill. This has been in the House previously. In fact, this is the fourth time the bill has been introduced in this place. It was introduced in the 42nd, 43rd and 44th parliaments, and now the Liberals are rumbling that they are going to include this in Bill C-16.

It is time to get this bill over the line to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that victims receive clear explanation about how an offender's eligibility and review dates are determined. The bill is just one small yet very consequential change which would demonstrate a measure of respect that victims deserve from our justice system in this country. Therefore it is my pleasure to lend my total support to my colleague and his private member's bill, Bill C-221.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies for his right of reply.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the bill be passed with the support of all parties.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 1:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 9, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:15 p.m.)