Bill C-235

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is of course an honour to speak to this very important bill from my colleague.

I want to focus members' attention back on why the bill is important and why the changes should be made. I will reiterate one of the horrific instances of something the bill would seek to address, and that, of course, is the murder of Tori Stafford, from my neck of the woods. I will remind members what happened in the case by reading from a local article at the time, which said:

Terri [Terri-Lynne McClintic, one of the murderers] went to a local hardware store and bought a claw hammer and some garbage bags, after which they drove to a remote location near Mount Forest, Ontario. Over there, Terri stated that she got out of the car while Michael sexually assaulted Tori. He then placed a garbage bag over her head and hit her with the hammer. They placed the body in more bags, hit it under a pile of rocks, and then drove away.

These are the types of horrific crimes that the bill seeks to bring justice for. Right now we do not have justice.

One of the key principles of our criminal justice system is proportionality, which means that the punishment should fit the crime. Right now we do not have the appropriate balance for these specific instances: abduction, rape, brutalization and murder. That is why my colleague's bill is important: It would return that balance.

There were concerns raised about discretion. If members read the bill, and I know that all members will before voting on it, they will see that it would maintain that discretion. It would allow a jury to make a recommendation, which would not be binding on the judge, and it would allow the judge the discretion to choose the period of parole ineligibility. It would not require it, but it would maintain that discretion. It is something that I, as a lawyer, support because context matters in these cases.

In these cases, we need more availability of a longer ineligibility period for parole, to ensure that brutal murderers like Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic do not have access to parole. As my hon. colleague mentioned, part of the problem is that once eligibility is reached, a person can seek it again and again, therefore revictimizing those who went through those terrible experiences and giving the opportunity for the murderers, rapists and abusers to get out again. Frankly, they should never see the light of day. That is why the bill, which would increase the ineligibility period from 25 years to between 25 and 40 years, is important.

Let me remind members that Parliament makes laws. Parliament upholds justice for Canadians. The courts will do what they want, but we should pass the bill.

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

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.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 28, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 comes as a bit of a surprise. The Supreme Court of Canada told us just a few years ago that keeping people in prison for 40 years is unconstitutional. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was told that and today we are back here with a bill that deals with pretty much the same issue. I do not know what to say about it. I am afraid we are wasting our time.

In any case, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We do not believe that everyone will be rehabilitated, nor do we believe that it happens automatically, but we do believe that we must invest in rehabilitation. We believe that when someone commits a crime, no matter how serious, we must at least attempt to rehabilitate them before returning them to society. Keeping them in prison for 40 years and then releasing them will not better serve the interests of justice or public safety. We must invest in building rehabilitation systems rather than prison walls.

The Bloc Québécois also believes in an effective court system that is not bogged down by slow administration of justice, resulting in decisions and rulings that will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a small claims court. This was attempted in the Bissonnette case, as members may recall, and the Supreme Court ruled that cumulative prison sentences of more than 40 years are unacceptable and unconstitutional. It should be noted that, when someone is sentenced to life in prison, they are sentenced. When that person is released on parole, there will be conditions, of course, and they will not be completely free. If they do not comply with the conditions, that person will go back to jail. What the Supreme Court has said is that parole applications can be considered after 25 years. I do not know where our Conservative colleagues are going with this Harper-era throwback, but I feel that it is a bit of a waste of time.

We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in an effective court system and we also believe in the authority of the Supreme Court. We cannot keep asking the Supreme Court to review the same cases over and over again. It makes no sense, and it shows a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's authority. I think we need to take note of these decisions and act accordingly. I invite our Conservative colleagues to reread these decisions carefully and help us move forward more effectively.

We also believe in making efficient use of House of Commons infrastructure. We have a lot of legislation to pass. I have been a member of the justice committee for a few years now, if not more, and we never manage to get through all the matters that we need to review. We are currently working on Bill C-16, but there are other bills scheduled to come forward and we need to conduct a study on the judicial appointment process. We are going to be swamped, and we will certainly not have looked at everything by the end of this Parliament. What are we going to do about Bill C‑235? We will devote who knows how many meetings, maybe two, three, five or even ten, to studying how we might best get this bill passed, even though we already know that the Supreme Court told us not long ago that such a measure would be unconstitutional. Once again, this is yet another misuse of House of Commons resources and of our judicial system. It is disrespectful to the authority of the Supreme Court, and it runs counter to the interests of society, which would greatly benefit from the effective rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crimes.

That was brief, but it sums up my thoughts. My colleagues have likely realized that we will be voting against Bill C-235. I know that my Conservative colleagues are working hard. I see the work they do on the justice committee. I do not always agree with them, but sometimes I do. Unfortunately, it seems I have been disagreeing with them more often lately. However, I cannot deny that they work hard. I urge them to channel that energy into moving important issues forward. There is so much in the Criminal Code that should be reviewed.

For goodness’ sake, we need to acknowledge the situation, accept the Supreme Court’s rulings and move forward. Let us focus on what needs to be addressed and what can be changed, rather than spinning our wheels.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this particular bill, Bill C-235, introduced by my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. This is a bill rooted in something very simple yet too often overlooked in our justice system, which is respect for victims and their families.

For far too many Canadians, justice does not end at sentencing. For the families of victims who have endured the unimaginable in the form of the abduction, sex assault and murder of a loved one, the trauma does not fade with time. In many cases, it is forced back into their lives again and again, through a system that compels them to relive their worst nightmare every day. Under current law, offenders convicted of first-degree murder are eligible for parole after 25 years.

What does that actually mean in practice? It means that after 25 years, families are drawn back into the system, often every two years thereafter, to attend parole hearings, hearings where they feel obligated to be present, hearings where they must prepare statements, hearings where they must again confront the individual responsible for the destruction of their family.

We know that in these most heinous cases, parole is almost never granted. We are not talking about individuals who are realistically going to be released. We are talking about individuals the likes of Paul Bernardo, like Clifford Olson, individuals who have used these hearings not as a step toward rehabilitation but as an opportunity to reassert control, to retraumatize families and to force them to relive unspeakable acts. That is the reality. That is why Bill C-235 matters.

The legislation proposes a targeted, reasonable and proportionate reform. It would allow judges, after hearing from a jury, to extend parole eligibility from 25 years up to 40 years, not in every case, not broadly, but only in the most egregious of circumstances, where three elements are present: the abduction, sex assault and murder of the same victim as part of the same event or series of events.

These are not ordinary crimes. These are the most depraved, calculated and devastating offences imaginable, and Canadians understand that. Families understand that. They understand that when someone commits all three of these acts against a single victim, the harm is not just irreparable. It is enduring. It is generational and often permanent, so when we talk about increasing parole ineligibility, we are not talking about punishment for the sake of punishment. We are talking about accountability.

Equally important, we are talking about peace, peace for families who should not have to structure their lives around parole hearings every two years, peace for parents who should not have to relive the loss of their child every two years, and peace for loved ones who should not be forced to hear again and again the details of crimes that shattered their world.

Bill C-235 strikes the right balance. It would not impose a mandatory extension. It would not remove judicial discretion. Instead, it would actually empower judges, after considering the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and, importantly, the recommendation from the jury, to determine whether a longer period of parole ineligibility is appropriate. That is a careful, measured approach. It respects the role of the courts and, most importantly, it respects the charter. It respects the voices of Canadians, through the jury system, who may wish to weigh in on what justice looks like in these most serious cases.

This is not about being extreme. This is about being fair: fair to victims, fair to families and fair to a public that expects our justice system to reflect the severity of the crimes being committed. We have heard from victims' families across the country. We have heard their frustrations, their exhaustion and their pain. They speak about a system that forces them into a never-ending cycle, one where they are just about to begin to rebuild their lives when they are pulled back into a process to reopen wounds that never truly heal. They speak about the emotional toll, the financial burden, the anxiety, the fear and the lack of closure.

Bill C-235 responds directly to all those concerns. It acknowledges that justice is not only about the offender. It is also about the lasting impact on those left behind. It takes a meaningful step to reduce that burden. We also know that this bill is limited in scope. Fewer than 10 cases per year would meet this threshold. These individuals are already serving life sentences, and in most cases they will never be released. The financial impact on Correctional Service Canada would be minimal, but the impact on families and on victims would be significant.

This is a small change in law, but a profound change in lived experience. It is consistent with the principle that Conservatives have always stood for: holding offenders accountable, while showing compassion and respect for victims. We believe that when crimes reach this level of brutality, the justice system must respond accordingly. We believe that protecting victims from further harm is not optional; it is actually essential. We believe that anything we can do to hold offenders more accountable for these heinous crimes is a step in the right direction.

There have been cases across the country that have shaken communities, cases that have devastated families and remind us, time after time, why this legislation is so important, and cases where the brutality of the crime defies comprehension and where families are left not only grieving but navigating a system that seems to prioritize process over humanity. While each case is unique, the pattern is the same: unimaginable loss followed by years, sometimes decades, of forced engagement with the criminal responsible.

Bill C-235 offers a different path, a path that still respects due process and judicial discretion and a path that better reflects the reality faced by victims' families. I also want to note that this is not a new idea. Previous versions of the bill have received strong support in the past. In fact, in a previous Parliament, members of the Liberal Party supported the legislation. This should never be a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right. This is about listening to victims, and this is about making a targeted, thoughtful improvement to our justice system.

At its core, Bill C-235 asks a simple question: When someone commits the most horrific combination of crimes, abduction, sexual assault and murder, should families be forced to relive that trauma every two years after 25 years have been served, or can we, as legislators, take a measured step to provide them with some degree of peace?

I believe that answer is abundantly clear, and I believe Canadians expect us to act. Let us stand with victims. Let us stand with families, and let us pass Bill C-235.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan Ashley, whose sister Linda Bright was murdered in 1978 by Donald Armstrong, said, about the parole board hearings in the past, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my Mom and Dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”.

She did an interview in the London Free Press back in 2012. Susan stated, referring to Donald Armstrong, “He cannot be fixed. And to put him in the community, it's a public risk to any woman that he can have access to. My family and myself, we really don't want to see another family victimized like we were. It's a terrible thing to have to endure, it's a lifetime of pain and suffering.”

Linda's mother, Margaret, said during her victim impact statement, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I've had to do in the last 20 years”.

Gary Rosenfeldt, Sharon Rosenfeldt's husband, who was a stepfather to Daryn Johnsrude, said publicly, after going through a number of parole hearings against Clifford Olsen in 1997, 2006 and 2010, when there was still the faint hope clause: “What's really horrendous about this...is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives. And this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”

Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson back in 1982. Darlene's sister, Terri, said this about having to go through these unnecessary, repetitive and painful parole board hearings: “Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.” In the Toronto Star, in talking about her mother reading her victim impact statement, she said, “I listened to her read it and it was like she was burying Dolly all over again. It was so upsetting for Mom. She cried. Families shouldn't have to go through this all over again.”

Yvonne Harvey of the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children said, “Although I have not personally faced the ordeal of a parole hearing, I have spoken to many individuals who have. I am certain that the primary intent of this bill, to spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings, would be most welcomed.”

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will invite the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to give his right of reply.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to stand here and represent the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island, and I continue to listen to and bring their voices forward here to Ottawa as their member of Parliament.

One of the biggest issues I hear about is the impact of crime on our community from people who are just trying to focus on the high cost of living and on raising their families in a safe community. People regularly talk to me about justice for victims as well as compassion and support for those impacted by crime. One way I am able to address this is through my private member's bill, Bill C-235, an act respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons.

This is an act that would focus on justice for victims and compassion for families of victims of the most heinous of crimes, where a victim is abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in the same incident, very similar to that of Kimberly Proctor from Langford on Vancouver Island, a community I represent. Kimberly was horrifyingly abducted, raped and murdered in 2010. I give my deepest respect to her family, whom I know are watching today.

I would like to also express my sincere appreciation to all of my colleagues who have sponsored and spoken to my private member's bill, including the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations and my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for initiating this private member's bill over 10 years ago.

The most important factor that I would like to focus on today and that I would like all members of the House to consider is that this bill is about both justice for victims and compassion for their families and loved ones. By giving judges the option of parole ineligibility of up to 40 years, this bill would be, as we have heard, charter-compliant and would spare the families and loved ones of victims from the retraumatization of unnecessary parole hearings, potentially, every two years.

I have personally sat with families as they recount the horrific process that comes with victim impact statements and the lengthy parole hearing process. The notifications that lead up to the hearings themselves are devastating. Disturbingly, it is well documented that criminals get off on recounting the heinous detail of their crimes solely for the purpose of revictimizing families.

Parole hearings are sometimes as little as 15 years after sentencing, based on time served and early parole factors. Presently in these cases, only the murder portion goes to sentencing, knowing that the other crimes will not affect the current maximum parole ineligibility of 25 years, leaving the victim, family and loved ones without justice for the abduction and sexual assault portions of these horrendous crimes.

Another important part worth noting is that criminals in these most heinous crimes will likely never receive parole. I was unable to find any such cases. These are criminals whom we know have no chance of ever being rehabilitated, but that does not stop the families, of course, from feeling obligated to submit victim impact statements and attend parole hearings, as it is the only way they can give a voice to those who can no longer speak, their family members, the victims silenced forever who can no longer speak for themselves.

Through debate, we have heard some minor suggestions for improvements discussed, including a more robust appeal mechanism, which is something we could examine in committee and indeed work with legislative counsel to potentially draft as an amendment. Another suggestion was to ensure that the bill would not be retroactive. However, I can confirm that new sentencing legislation is never retroactive. We also heard suggestions to ensure that judges provide clear and exceptional grounds to accompany such sentences. Once again, I am willing to re-examine and strengthen any judicial requirements to justify sentences.

I would like to conclude our second reading of this bill with a few points. Firstly, I would like to remind all members of the House that this bill, previously passed through to committee, received broad, cross-party support and was set to return to the House before Parliament was prorogued in 2021. Secondly, I am open in committee to exploring and making necessary amendments, if required, to strengthen the bill, some of which I have addressed here today. Lastly, which I think is the most important part, I am asking all members to support my bill on behalf of the families I have heard from about the stresses, pressures and devastating impact of ongoing parole hearings and being revictimized by these most heinous criminals.

Therefore, I challenge members from across the House to join me and give broad support to Bill C-235 by voting yes tomorrow and sending it before the justice committee. More importantly, I challenge them to show Canadians that we have listened.

This bill is about justice for victims. It is about sparing loved ones from the parole hearing process that forces them to relive the worst moment of their lives over and over. By supporting this bill, we can show Canadians that we are prepared to stand with victims' families and loved ones while respecting the memory of those they have lost.

[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.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that we pass this bill on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I therefore declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

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