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

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

moved that Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to speak today to my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility, also known as the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. This bill was originally championed by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, dating back to the 41st Parliament. Most recently, in 2021, the bill made it to committee, and was about to be referred back to the House with all-party support. However, Parliament was prorogued, and that ended the progress.

I want to thank my colleague from Manitoba for all his hard work on this bill, his compassion for victims and families, and for allowing me to bring this forward once again.

I also want to thank my many colleagues who have shown their support by co-seconding my bill, as well as the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River for being here today to both second and speak to my bill. It is my great honour to pick up the work that was done by colleagues before me, and I am committed to bringing this bill through the process fully so families can have the justice they deserve.

Tori, Holly, Tammy, Leslie, Kristen, Christine, Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun, Terri, Louise, Sereena, Mona, Andrea, Brenda, Georgina, Marnie and Kimberly are all victims my bill could have provided justice for. This is not an exhaustive list, and people will not recognize most of these names.

Instead, they will recognize the names of their murderers, such as Bernardo, Homolka, Olson, Pickton, Rafferty, McClintic, Briere, Wellwood and Moffat. These are all criminals who have committed the most heinous of crimes, and these are the names that get reported in the news every time they apply for parole, the names that continue to haunt the families of the victims for the rest of their lives.

This is what is at the heart of Bill C-235. It is about protecting the families of victims from having to relive the agony of the horrific crimes inflicted against their loved ones during parole hearings year after year.

This legislation would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to empower the courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years when sentencing criminals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered the same victim in the same incident. These victims are often our most innocent and vulnerable Canadians.

Increasing parole ineligibility from a maximum of 25 to 40 years would spare families from having to go through the process of attending unnecessary parole hearings and making victim impact statements, which are traumatic, to say the least, and heart-wrenching for these families. Worse yet, these sadistic murderers often apply for parole every two years once they are eligible for the sole purpose of toying with families, revictimizing them and making them relive the gruesome killings that were committed. There are studies that suggest these heinous killers get off on recounting their crimes in gruesome detail in front of their victims' families at these hearings.

It is worth noting that my bill is not about creating longer sentences for these sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts will likely never qualify for parole. Parole boards have been very consistent in not allowing these types of heinous criminals out on parole.

I know there are some concerns about whether or not this violates section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding cruel and unusual punishment, but I would like to emphasize that increased parole ineligibility is strictly under judicial discretion. The parole ineligibility period could now be set up to 40 years, but it would remain at the discretion of a judge and as advised by a jury.

This bill was modelled after Bill C-48, now the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which also afforded judges the ability to extend the parole ineligibility period for multiple murder convictions. Rather than being concurrent, they are now served consecutively. Bill C-48 has stood up to a charter challenge. As such, my bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights.

The maximum of 40 years was determined by looking at the maximum ineligibility periods for each of these three offences and adding them together to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently. For murder, it is 25 years without parole. For abduction, it is 10 years. For sexual assault, it is 4.6 years. That is a total of 39.6 years, hence 40 years.

I want to be clear: Bill C-235 is not about mandatory minimum sentencing. I will state again that this bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights. It is based on the discretion of a presiding judge, through recommendations from a jury, allowing a judge to set parole ineligibility of up to 40 years.

I cannot stress enough that this bill targets the most depraved in our society. It targets those who will likely never see parole, so it will not impact criminals who will likely never be released from prison. This is about sparing families from appearing at unnecessary parole hearings. I will repeat that: My bill is about the families who are dedicated to giving a voice to and representing their lost loved ones, who cannot represent themselves.

I want to speak to a case in my riding from 15 years ago. Kimberly Proctor, who was 18 years old, was abducted, tortured, raped and murdered by two of her classmates. I know her family, whom I have met, is listening closely today. Her killers pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for only 10 years. Although they were minors, they were charged as adults. The Proctor family has already had to face multiple parole hearings and will continue to do so at least every two years, if not more, for as long as Kimberly's murderers live.

Kimberly's murderers were not convicted of separate charges for abduction and sexual assault, and this is not an isolated incident. Many prosecutors will stay additional charges and only prosecute the highest charge, normally first-degree murder, because it results in the heaviest penalty possible. My bill would encourage prosecutors to prosecute to the fullest extent, thus including all charges. This would allow for a longer period of parole ineligibility should there be a conviction on all three charges of murder, abduction and sexual assault in the same incident. This would not only help serve justice to the families upon conviction; it would also protect them from unnecessary parole hearings and having to relive the trauma every two years.

Again, I want to reiterate that these depraved murderers, these brutal, sadistic members of society, will likely never be released back into society. The Parole Board of Canada will continue to hold them in institutions, knowing they are dangerous offenders who will likely reoffend. Let us ensure that we are not revictimizing families by having them go to all of these unnecessary Parole Board hearings and relive the murder and the brutal details of how their loved ones were killed.

I hope members from all sides of the House who rise to ask questions on this bill will commit to supporting the bill, noting that it has previously received support from across all party lines, including at committee. I look forward to continued support from across the House as we seek to prevent the revictimization of the families of murdered and brutalized persons.

Let us remember the long list of victims I mentioned earlier in my speech: Tori, Holly, Tammy, Leslie, Kristen, Christine, Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun, Terri, Louise, Serena, Mona, Andrea, Brenda, Georgina, Marina and Kimberly. Let us remember and respect their families.

I would like to conclude with these thoughts: My bill speaks to the most heinous of cases in which a criminal abducts, sexually assaults and murders the same victim in one incident, and as a result, judges would have discretion to set parole ineligibility at up to 40 years.

I would like to state that the bill is fair, as it does not change the outcome; the offenders are unlikely ever to be released. It is just, as the courts and judges retain their discretionary powers based on the circumstances of each case. Most importantly, the bill is compassionate. It is about sparing the victim's families and loved ones from unnecessary parole hearings year after year.

For the Proctor family, and the families of all the victims I mentioned today, I will continue to fight to protect families in my riding on Vancouver Island, and indeed across Canada, from unnecessary parole hearings and the continued trauma that is caused as a result. I hope the bill will bring them some solace.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to what the member said. Looking at the victims is probably the biggest motivation for all of us to give very serious thought to the legislation. I would think every member in the House is sympathetic to the victims and what victims have to go through. I thought he described the situation quite well.

Does the member believe there is a possibility of amendments that might provide more strength to the legislation or even make sure it is charter-compliant? If he wants to provide some thoughts on that, it would be appreciated.

I do value the manner in which we have a focus on victims.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question. I am disappointed he feels I only described it “quite well”; I thought I did very well.

I appreciate his comment about looking at victims. I did focus on looking at the victims. I would also have liked to focus on looking at the heinous offenders, but, to be frank, some of the details just cannot be repeated in the House.

As for amendments, I will note that this did go to committee before and received cross-party support. I hope that it goes to committee and no amendments are required, although I am open to them if there are improvements.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I fully understand the emotional weight he carries. I have some questions for him, and later on I will explain why I think his bill will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

I want to hear him on what he said, because he is aware that there are constitutional issues at play. There is a charter article against cruel and unusual punishment, and there have already been Supreme Court rulings on this.

My colleague told us that Bill C-48 had been passed and that this meant that his bill would also pass. Bill C-48 dealt with bail, that is, the provisional release of someone who has not yet been found guilty, whereas Bill C-235 deals with parole for murderers.

First, I would like him to explain how he manages to establish a causal link. Second, if this bill is passed and then struck down, is my colleague and his party prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to keep it in force, if he is serious about his initiative?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I would like to speak to the emotion and the impossible situation that these victims face. The member brings forward a more technical question about cruel and unusual punishment. As I said, Bill C-48, which the current bill is modelled after, dealt with cruel and unusual punishment, which would apply similarly for the bill. I see no change of outcome. We would stand by the bill, with a focus on protecting families.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill narrowly targets some of the most sadistic murderers; they are murderers who rape, brutalize and abduct their victims. The Library of Parliament looked into how many murderers who fall into this category received parole. The answer is that it could not find a single instance in which the Parole Board granted full parole, and there were very rare circumstances in which temporary absences and day parole were granted.

Does that not underscore the reasonableness of the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for reiterating that, as per Bill C-48, the bill would withstand a constitutional challenge under the charter.

As my colleague pointed out, the criminals in question are the most heinous of criminals, and none of them have been found to have been released. Therefore we know that the parole boards will keep the heinous offenders in jail, and the bill would not affect the outcome of the punishments for people who frankly deserve to never be released.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to repeat my question for my colleague. If he is truly serious about his initiative, then he must promise the victims today that if this bill passes and is later struck down, and if the Conservative Party ever forms a government, it will use the notwithstanding clause to uphold the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I will fight to ensure that the bill makes it through and becomes legislation, and that these most heinous crimes are punished accordingly. I will always stand to support victims.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-235, introduced by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

This bill addresses an issue that strikes at the very heart of our justice system—the way that our country punishes the most severe, devastating crimes resulting not only in death or serious injury, but also in lasting trauma for family members, survivors and society at large.

The bill before us proposes to allow the courts to impose a parole ineligibility period lasting up to 40 years when the same victim, during the same sequence of events, is murdered, kidnapped or forcibly confined, when a sexual offence is also involved. These crimes of extreme violence destroy lives, families and communities. Society justifiably feels a deep need for justice and protection in response to them.

Before taking our legal analysis any further, I want to acknowledge the immense pain of the victims and family members who have lived through such tragedies. I think that my colleague across the way did a good job, and I thank him for the eloquent way that he rekindled a debate on this subject.

When a family has to relive their trauma at every parole hearing, it is not only difficult, it is inhumane. This is not a theoretical debate. It is about shattered lives, parents and children living with impossible grief, survivors trying to rebuild their lives after an unthinkable incident.

This bill aims to address that suffering. It is intended to offer a form of stability and some degree of healing by reducing the frequency of hearings that reopen the wounds that might still be raw. This intention is profoundly just and deserves to be heard. It deserves serious discussion. We must respond with empathy, but also with rigour.

However, in a country governed by the rule of law, we must balance two imperatives. The first is the moral imperative to protect victims. The second is the legal imperative to respect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am saying that emotion is important, but emotion alone cannot be the basis for a criminal sentence. Passing a law based solely on emotion without a solid legal framework runs the very real risk of that law eventually being struck down, unfortunately. If we pass a law that is later struck down, we would be disappointing victims a second time, as I just said.

It is not through weak laws that we protect families. We do so through robust, enforceable and constitutional laws. The current system is strict but well defined. Canada already has a system that allows for adjustments in terms of ineligibility for parole for murders. The system automatically calls for 25 years of imprisonment for first-degree murder and between 10 and 25 years of imprisonment for second-degree murder. Section 743.6 of the Criminal Code also includes mechanisms for delaying access to parole in certain serious cases.

This system is based on a fundamental principle that has been recognized by the Supreme Court for decades: individualization in sentencing. Sentences must take into account not only the act committed, but also the degree of responsibility of the convicted person, their history and, yes, their rehabilitation potential. This is not an ideological position. It is a constitutional principle.

The Bissonnette decision serves as an essential reminder. Bill C-235 cannot be studied without considering the Bissonnette decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court struck down consecutive ineligibility periods lasting 50, 75 or 100 years. Why were they struck down? They were struck down because a sentence that allows no real prospect of release, even in theory, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of section 12 of the charter. The court did not say that the crimes were not atrocious or that the sentences should not be long. It said that the state can never completely rule out the possibility of reintegration into society, even for offenders guilty of the most heinous crimes. The decision is not political; it is a constitutional requirement.

A 40-year ineligibility period could be considered extreme in some cases, particularly if it were imposed on very young individuals or in specific circumstances. The legal risk is therefore not theoretical, but rather real, serious and predictable. Our responsibility here in the House is to strengthen the bill so that it cannot be successfully challenged. We are not rejecting Bill C-235, on the contrary. We recognize the legitimate intention behind the member's bill. However, for it to become a lasting, effective piece of legislation, respectful of fundamental principles, it needs to be improved. We are therefore proposing three amendments.

The first amendment, which is essential, is about a clear and consistent right of appeal. When imposing an exceptionally severe sentence, there must be a national review mechanism to harmonize the case law. The second amendment is about a requirement to provide grounds for any inadmissibility exceeding 25 years. An exceptional sentence must be accompanied by equally exceptional grounds. This will reinforce the legitimacy of the decision in the eyes of the public and will protect the law from challenges. The third amendment specifies the law can only be applied prospectively. This is essential to avoid the risk of violating section 11 of the charter, which prohibits increasing a sentence retroactively. These amendments in no way diminish the scope of my colleague's bill. On the contrary, they make it stronger, more consistent, more sustainable and more useful for families and survivors.

We want a strong, compassionate and constitutional justice system. Our goal is not just to impose harsh penalties, but to impose harsh penalties that will stand the test of time and hold up in courts in the future. Victims have already endured the unspeakable. They do not deserve to have a court decision imposed on them a few years later if it will have the effect of striking down the law they had pinned their hopes on. We must therefore offer them real, not symbolic, protection; justice that is firm but legally sound; a law that respects the Constitution but does not falter in the face of challenges.

In conclusion, Bill C‑235 is very important. It is guided by a just and compassionate intention to better protect victims of the most serious crimes. However, in order to become a truly effective law, it must be modified by means of the three amendments I have presented. It must reflect our legitimate outrage, but also our deep respect for the rule of law. It is in this spirit that we are participating in this debate, and it is in this spirit that we invite all members of Parliament to improve this text so that it becomes a fair, sustainable, balanced and strong law, but above all, a compassionate one.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating the bill introduced by my Conservative Party colleague, who was elected in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, in British Columbia. I salute him and I would like him to know that I have the utmost respect for him, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with his approach.

His Bill C-235 proposes to amend the Criminal Code so that, in cases of murder preceded by kidnapping or sexual assault, the judge may impose a period of parole ineligibility that exceeds the current 25-year period and can instead go up to 40 years. If my colleague's bill were to pass, a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events could receive a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 40 years, if a judge so decided after considering the jury's recommendation.

That raises two questions. What are the motivations behind my colleague's initiative? Is it feasible?

First of all, let me take a moment to explain the current rules regarding parole for murderers. The Criminal Code already states that the minimum sentence for first- and second-degree murder is life in prison, with the possibility of parole after a certain period of time.

First-degree murder means a planned, premeditated murder, whereas second-degree murder means an unplanned murder, such as a crime of passion. In the case of a murder preceded by a kidnapping or sexual assault, which is the focus of Bill C-235, the Criminal Code already provides that this type of murder, premeditated or not, constitutes first-degree murder, meaning it is punishable by life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. What happens after 25 years? Individuals convicted of first-degree murder can apply to the Parole Board for a review of their case and for parole. The Parole Board examines the inmate's file and then conducts a review based on the inmate's reports, risk of reoffending and risk to society, for example. If the conditions are met, the board will allow the inmate to defend their parole application at a hearing before the board. The board then determines whether to grant parole and, if so, what conditions the murderer will be required to meet while on parole, such as reporting regularly to a parole officer, abstaining from alcohol or reporting any relationship with a woman.

It should be noted, as my colleague has already pointed out, that parole applications for criminals are rarely granted. Currently, two-thirds of parole applications are denied, and many criminals throughout Canadian history have repeatedly failed to obtain parole or day parole. My colleague referred to Mr. Bernardo, who has already been denied parole three times, in 2018, 2021 and 2024. This is how our criminal justice system currently works for murderers.

I want to come back to our questions. What are my colleague's motivations? What does he hope to achieve with his bill? He has said a few words about it and gave an interview to a Vancouver Island media outlet in which he explained his approach. My colleague already admits that a murderer who kidnapped and raped his victim beforehand would most likely never be granted parole after 25 years. However, the idea is to prevent the murderer from being able to apply for parole, because if there is an application, there is a hearing. If there is a hearing, the victims' loved ones and family members may have to relive the excruciating pain of being reminded of what happened. My colleague has already explained that the main purpose of his bill is not to delay parole, but rather, and I quote, “to ensure that victims are spared the pain of having to relive their trauma [and] prepare for hearings that may ultimately change nothing”.

The goal is therefore to spare the bereaved from having to attend parole board hearings. That is why the short title of the bill is the “Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act”.

What needs to be said in this regard is, first of all, that the presence of loved ones and family members at Parole Board of Canada hearings is not mandatory. From a human perspective, the need and desire of loved ones to attend is entirely understandable. From a legal perspective, however, their testimony is not directly relevant to the issues before the board. I have already suggested in the House that their testimony could be given through written statements or pre-recorded video testimony that could be played at each hearing, without necessarily requiring their physical presence. I think that would be a realistic approach to meeting the member's objective of not adding to the pain of the victims' family members and loved ones, and I think it deserves consideration.

With all due respect, as the Bloc Québécois sees it, the solution proposed by my colleague today seems unrealistic and unconstitutional. I truly believe it is unfortunate to give false hope to families that have already endured a lot of pain. There is no realistic hope of this bill being enforceable. This brings us to answer the second question: Is it feasible?

My colleague from the Liberal Party spoke earlier about the Bissonnette decision. This is a recent decision that was handed down in 2022. The Supreme Court explained the state of the law regarding sentences and the possibility of obtaining parole. To summarize, in 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette entered the Quebec City mosque armed with a semi-automatic weapon. He killed six people and wounded five others. At trial, he pleaded guilty to all charges against him, including six counts of first-degree murder. At the time, there was a section of the Criminal Code that allowed for the periods of parole ineligibility to be combined. The mosque killer faced six consecutive periods of ineligibility for parole of 25 years. He therefore faced 150 years without parole.

This case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2022, the Supreme Court struck down this section of the Criminal Code, saying that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important to mention that the Supreme Court also rejected the proposal made by the trial judge not to impose a 150-year sentence without the possibility of parole, but to extend the period of ineligibility for parole to 40 years. The Supreme Court rejected this solution, which is being proposed today.

I would like to briefly quote the Supreme Court:

Section 12 of the Charter guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In essence, the purpose of s. 12 of the Charter is to protect human dignity and ensure respect for the inherent worth of each individual.... the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life without a realistic possibility of parole...is, by its very nature, intrinsically incompatible with human dignity. It is degrading in nature in that it presupposes at the time of its imposition that the offender is beyond redemption and lacks the moral autonomy needed for rehabilitation.

It seems highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would find that a parole ineligibility period of 40 years is in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In light of that, if my colleague is serious, then there are two ways to ensure that, if it is passed, his bill is valid and enforceable.

We could invoke the notwithstanding clause and say that, in this case, we are going to override that section of the charter. I asked my colleague about that, but he did not seem to be committed to that course of action. I do not understand because, if the member is really serious about this, then he needs to do what needs to be done, but that is not what is happening.

The other way to ensure that this bill, if passed, would be valid is to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To do so would require the consent of seven out of 10 provinces, representing more than 50% of the Canadian population. My colleague also did not propose this as a solution.

What this means is that we are considering a bill that, in our view, is likely to violate the Constitution and is not applicable in our legal system. I say this with all due respect. The member is not proposing any solutions to make this possible. I cannot help but feel sad for the families and loved ones of murdered and brutalized victims, to whom my colleague promised to take action by dangling the prospect of a new law that has no chance of ever being enforceable. I can only share their bitterness about politicians who, once again and once too often, raise people's hopes only to let them down. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the seconder of the bill, I rise to speak in strong support of Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, introduced by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

I want to thank the member for his leadership in bringing the bill forward. It is legislation that would help spare the families of murder victims from being retraumatized with frequent parole hearings brought by some of the worst and most sadistic murderers in our correctional system.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who has been a tireless and consistent champion for the rights of victims and has championed the bill in previous Parliaments. In fact, I recall speaking to the bill in a previous iteration in 2019.

The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to give judges the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period for first-degree murderers who sexually assault or kidnap their victim in the course of the same criminal event or series of events. As it presently stands in the Criminal Code, all first-degree murderers are eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. All the bill would do is provide that, in the case of the worst of the worst offenders, a judge would have the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period from anywhere from 25 years all the way up to 40 years. I will make a few observations.

First, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford noted, in the Criminal Code, the automatic sentence for murder is life. That reflects the gravity of the offence and the fact that murder is the worst, the most serious, offence in the Criminal Code. I would submit that it follows that a life sentence ought to mean something when considering the length of time a convicted first-degree murderer who rapes and kidnaps their victim should spend behind bars before they have the privilege of applying for parole.

Second, I would note that while murder is horrific and evil, not all murderers are equal, yet the Criminal Code treats them equally in the case of first-degree murderer, insofar as they are eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. I certainly agree that anyone convicted of first-degree murder should not be able to apply any earlier than 25 years. Frankly, however, there are some murderers who are so vile, so sadistic, so evil and so irredeemable that they really fall into their own separate category. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford listed some of those murderers with whom, unfortunately, Canadians are familiar.

For those types of sadistic murderers, there is really only one thing that can be done, which is to separate them from society for the rest of their life. That is precisely what the Parole Board has done in cases of murderers who abduct, rape, torture, brutalize and murder their victims. Those murderers are almost never provided with parole. In fact the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asked the Library of Parliament to undertake research to determine how often murderers who fit into that category receive parole. The Library of Parliament could not find one case where a murderer in that category was granted full parole, and it found very few cases where temporary absences or day parole was granted.

Simply put, our correctional system has deemed murderers who fall into this category, who rape and brutalize their victims in the course of murdering them, to not be releasable. I would submit, therefore, that this underscores the reasonableness of the bill.

While such murderers are not releasable, they can apply for parole after 25 years. In fact, they can apply in year 23. When their application is turned down, as it almost certainly will be, they can apply again and again, year after year. Depending on the age of the offender, the murderer, that could mean dozens of parole applications and parole hearings over the course of the lifetime of the murderer. In the process, the families of victims are punished by the process. They are victimized again and again, retraumatized by having to go through parole hearings in which the application has virtually no chance of success.

Having regard for that, I ask if it is really that unreasonable to give a judge the discretion, in the case of the worst of the worst, to determine that a murderer ought not to be eligible for parole at 25 years, or for a longer period of time, anywhere up to 40 years. It could be 30 years. It could be 35 years. It would be entirely at the discretion of the trial judge having regard for the specific facts, the specific circumstances and the specific offender. I would say that is common sense. That is just. It does right for the families of victims who were murdered.

Speaking of frequent parole hearings for convicted murderers, that is why I offered Brian's bill in honour of the late Brian Ilesic, who was brutally murdered along with Michelle Shegelski and Eddie Rejano at the University of Alberta's Hub Mall. Matthew Schuman survived but lives with injuries that are life-altering. Brian's bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that murderers who apply for parole and are turned down cannot apply again and again. Their parole would only be considered at the time of the statutory review that occurs every five years rather than every year.

I am grateful to the member for Edmonton Griesbach for introducing Brian's bill in this Parliament, Bill C-243. It is at the second reading stage. I hope it passes. It is common-sense legislation, just as this is common-sense legislation.

This legislation would go a long way toward sparing the families of victims from frequent parole hearings. It would stop convicted murderers from being able to, in many instances, take advantage of hearings to deliberately try to cause trauma to the families of victims, because they sadistically enjoy revictimizing and continuing to revictimize the families of their victims. It would also, of course, address the abuse of the process and all the costs associated with these hearings in respect of murderers who, frankly, have no hope because they are not releasable.

I was pleased to learn, based on the speech from the member for Bourassa, that the government supports the intent of the bill, and therefore, it sounds like the government will be supporting the bill at the second reading stage to go to committee. The member for Bourassa cited three amendments—

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

The hon. member is out of time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, the member did an outstanding job of expressing his thoughts to justify bringing forward the bill and really showing a great deal of sympathy to the victims. That is where I would like to continue, in terms of my question.

I genuinely believe that no matter their political stripe, people can relate to the circumstances surrounding these horrendous crimes and be very sympathetic to them. Where we can act, we should act.

I listened to the Bloc's position on the legislation. They are not supporting the legislation, but I still respect what the Bloc is saying and the concerns they raise. I would like to think that it does not take away from the sympathy they actually have towards victims. We heard the member for Bourassa talk about the government's potential position, with respect to the legislation, that there are some concerns with the legislation. Those concerns need to be addressed.

I put forward my question for the member, and I was encouraged by his response and hope that it is all in good faith. The motivation for the legislation should be focused on the victims. When we talk about the victims, I would even expand it a little more to talk about our communities. Often when we hear of these parole eligibility hearings taking place, it generates quite a bit of media attention. Through that media attention, all forms of opinions and thoughts are developed in our communities.

For me, I want to make sure there is some justice for our communities and for our victims. I think it is really important for them to not have to relive these horrific incidents that have occurred. Even though, as has been pointed out, and the member is aware, the victim does not necessarily have to attend a parole board hearing. However, I can understand why they would want to attend. I can understand how the media attention generated by the appearance of someone who has committed a horrendous crime filters into the community and then into the homes of the victims. It is very real. It is very tangible.

Based on the assumption that the motivation is right, in terms of bringing forward the legislation, and that the member is genuinely open to amendments, there is an opportunity, in an apolitical fashion, to see the legislation ultimately get to committee. That could be a very healthy situation. We will have to wait and see how that ultimately develops.

Private members, and it does not matter from what side of the House, will often identify an issue that is important to them, and that could be because of a personal experience, because of a constituent in the riding they represent raising a particular issue or because of a stakeholder, in this case, the victim. The types of victims we are talking about in this situation come from all regions of the country.

I can appreciate when a member identifies an issue and then chooses to bring it forward in the form of a private member's bill. What I like about private members' bills is the fact that they are programmed. We know that at most, there will be two hours of debate on this legislation. I would argue that that is a good thing. Otherwise, we might not ever see a vote on the legislation that would enable it to go to committee if it passed.

It is important for me to raise that because I personally believe we need to look at rule changes so that we can apply the same principles and program votes to government legislation, though maybe not two hours. I say that as the member is concerned about the file on crime. We are also concerned about the substantive legislation before the House today. There has been so much work dealing with issues like bail reform.

I know the member is very determined about his legislation that he has brought forward, and I believe he will get apolitical support to ultimately see it continue to proceed. I think we need to look at the crime file in a more apolitical fashion in general, because what the member has proposed is very similar to what we are trying to push in other legislative initiatives, and they are not always treated in the same fashion.

Looking at the legislation, there is a need for some amendments to it. There was a concern about whether or not there should be an ability to appeal, for example. If some form of amendment could be brought forward on that, we would see it being more compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we do not have some sort of appeal mechanism in there, it might not stand up against the charter and we could see it being ruled on in a superior court, or even at the Supreme Court. That issue has to be dealt with. I am very interested to hear how the member believes we can look at incorporating that into the legislation.

I have a great deal of confidence in our judicial independence and judges being able to use discretion. When we talk about changing the law in the form we are talking about today, where we exceed the 25 years that is currently in place, there should be an obligation for the the judge to provide some form of explanation detailing why we need to be able to extend eligible parole past that 25 years. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.

I am not a lawyer by profession, but I used to be a justice critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago. I can tell members that not only did I learn about joint responsibilities for our justice system; I also learned the importance of being charter-compliant. I would highlight two areas of concern, but there might be some additional concerns out there. That is the reason I look to the member in the hope that we will see amendments to the legislation so that more members of the House will feel comfortable to the degree that we could see it pass.

At the end of the day, if we can do that, the real winners would not be the members of the House, but the public as a whole. Canadians would benefit. That is the reason why, when we talk about legislation in general—

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

I am sorry, but the hon. member has overrun his time.

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[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)