Justice Committee on June 1st, 2026

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

The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on these issues, of course. I'm sure you have read those decisions carefully. One of the ones I'm thinking of is the Bissonnette case in 2022, which notably stated that it was unconstitutional to impose consecutive ineligibility periods.

On the very essence of these decisions, the Supreme Court stated that “Parliament may not prescribe a sentence that negates the objective of rehabilitation in advance, and irreversibly, for all offenders”. That means that rehabilitation is at the heart of our justice system.

First, I would like to know whether you believe in rehabilitation as something possible and desirable, or whether you think rehabilitation is impossible in some cases.

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

That's a fair question, and, yes, I do believe in rehabilitation. More importantly, I believe that criminals found guilty should have the opportunity for rehabilitation.

In the Bissonnette case, which was struck down, it was for parole ineligibility periods of 50, 75 and even 100 years. It's very different. In this case, as I mentioned in my presentation, it's just a combination of the total. That's how we arrived at 40 years. There is opportunity for rehabilitation.

Furthermore, this was modelled after Bill C-48, protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murder acts, which also extended ineligibility. It did survive a charter challenge. In the scope of the 40 years, it has survived the charter challenge. It is a long period from the 75 and 100 years within the Bissonnette decision. It allows for the possibility of rehabilitation. However unlikely it may be in this case, I do agree that it is a valid requirement for the possibility of rehabilitation.

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

If the belief is that rehabilitation is possible, wouldn't it be entirely legitimate and desirable to conduct a reassessment at fixed periods to see whether the convicted offender is benefitting from rehabilitation or whether there are other more appropriate measures than detention?

Wouldn't that seem desirable to you?

Twenty-five years is a long time. In that context, conducting a review every two or five years, as the case may be, would make it possible to assess whether there has been rehabilitation.

Wouldn't that seem like the best way forward?

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

Indeed, I said, “possibility of rehabilitation”. Regardless, it's not for me to decide what that is. That's what judicial discretion is for. It allows the judges, who know these types of cases and these types of offenders, to be the ones who make those decisions. We should all put our trust in the judiciary to do that.

You said that 25 years is not a long time. It's actually at 23 years when offenders can first apply if they're given that chance every two years. However, these are criminals. These are the ones who have taken away lives and who have lasted for more time. The lives that are lost are for more than 25 years. If you're a family member, that 25 years is not a very long period for grieving.

As you approach the 23-year period—even in advance of that, as you will hear on Wednesday—preparations in advance of a parole hearing are not just something that turn up at the last minute. There are decisions made, letters received and statements are prepared. It consumes a very long period of time.

To summarize, that's not up for us as parliamentarians to decide. That should be with the judiciary.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Gill, we'll go to you for five minutes.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Kibble, for introducing this important bill.

As the member of Parliament for Brampton West, every week I'm hearing more and more from victims of violence in my community. Violent crime is on the rise in my community and across the country. Extortionists, murderers and gangsters act without consequences. I know I'm not the only member in this room who regularly hears from constituents concerned about the Liberal crime crisis.

It is now more important than ever to put victims first, because this government has not done so for 11 years. Our job today is to work together to put victims ahead of criminals for a change. That's why Bill C-235 is so important.

Mr. Kibble, do you think we neglect families in the trial process?

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

I agree with your assessment of crime across Canada. You gave various examples. This bill specifically deals with the most heinous and gruesome criminals. It is focused very much on that. I do agree that victims and families should be put ahead of criminals. I believe very much that this bill does exactly that.

I don't really know what else to say beyond that. That is certainly the goal. I think that it will achieve that. We've also seen that in Bill C-48.

You spoke about the court process protecting families. Though not related to this case, my own daughter's boyfriend was murdered. I went with her to trial every day for a fairly long period. The courts were very sympathetic and supportive, but the process can be particularly challenging for families. I have a small window into what families are dealing with in these types of cases, but I wouldn't begin to imagine what they're going through.

Regardless of the supports there that you receive, the sympathies that you receive from the Crown and defence prosecutors, and the understanding that they give—I'm not knocking them in any way, because they are positive—it still can be particularly tough on those families.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

We know crime of any nature has devastating impacts on families and their loved ones. Is this about everyday cases or is it about the worst of the worst?

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

The short answer is, it's about the worst of the worst. It's Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and so on.

As I said, and I would like to repeat it, fortunately, there are not many of these cases in Canada relative to other crimes, but I think that the impact, as Ms. Gladu showed, is huge for so many people across Canada. This would help bring that support to the families.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

We know the Supreme Court's habit of finding mandatory minimums cruel and unusual in fringe cases. Could you see that applying here?

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

Could you perhaps define for me what a fringe case is? I am not a lawyer.

I'm thankful that there are not many of these cases, although every one is too many. They would all be unique. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a fringe case.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'll move on to my next question then.

The Bissonnette decision basically allows murderers to get discounts on additional murders or on other crimes. Why is it important that murderers face justice for all their crimes?

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

Under a judge's discretion, I think there are many cases where sentencing should be consecutive. Unfortunately, we've seen in a few other areas this has not been approved in the House. For example, I think consecutive sexual assaults should be consecutive. It has to be a balance between deterrence and justice for victims and families, while also allowing for the possibility, however slight it might be, of rehabilitation.

I believe that Bill C-235, although it may sound harsh, based on the harshness of those cases that we've described, finds and meets that balance.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Begum, you're up for five minutes.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kibble, for coming in today and introducing this legislation.

I echo the sentiment of Ms. Gladu and many others in regard to how important it is for us to have a strong sentencing regime for offenders. You've named a few, and I just want to say that I really appreciate how respectful you are to some of the victims in the way you highlighted that.

I think it's really important that we pass any legislation with as much scrutiny and care as possible, and allow for it to do justice. That's just an unintentional play on words.

One of the things you talked about, in terms of judicial reasoning.... Actually, before I go into that, I'll speak a little bit about prospective application. You mentioned in your introduction that the prospective application provision is redundant.

If it changes nothing legally, what is the concern with providing additional clarity and certainty directly in the bill?

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

I appreciate your very good play on words. I also couldn't agree more that any new law needs to be taken seriously and scrutinized, such as we're doing through this process in committee and with our witnesses for the next hour.

I have nothing against putting in an amendment about making it not retroactive. It's simply redundant and potentially risks setting a precedent for some other case or law. I don't think that it is worth putting in. Perhaps our departmental witnesses could better speak to that, but to me, it's already a law. It is not retroactive. Therefore, it would simply be redundant to put it in.

I would keep the legislation cleaner.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I understand that Parliament regularly includes clarifying provisions in criminal legislation, so I wanted to ask why this bill should be treated any differently.

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

Why should it be treated any differently from what?

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Why should it be treated differently from any other legislation in terms of clarifying and having something that is put concretely in order? I think it also challenges anything...because I feel this bill is so important in what it aims to do, and I really salute that effort. I hope that we can help make it even stronger. If Parliament can play a role in clarifying some of these provisions and making it better in terms of having this legislation, shouldn't we do that?

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

Again, I'll state the agreement. It's legally redundant. Charter section 11, provision 11(i) already prohibits retroactive punishment, and all new legislation is prospective by default unless it explicitly states otherwise, which this bill does not. Codifying prospectivity on the face of the bill could invite litigation over the line between clarification and limitation, potentially narrowing the bill's reach in ways Parliament may not have intended.

That said, if the committee views it as a pure housekeeping and an important measure, while it has no substantive effect, I don't have a serious objection to it.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you for stating that. I have one more question. You said that judges already provide reasons for these decisions. If they already do, what is the harm in making that expectation explicit in the legislation?

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

That's fair enough. I appreciate your question.

As far as mandatory reasons into a decision are concerned, a judge already provides reasons in the sentencing. It's an obligation that's established in law. A statutory requirement specifically targeting this provision implies distrust of the judiciary, and it may invite formulaic compliance rather than genuine deliberation. It also adds procedural weight to a mechanism deliberately designed to be streamlined and victim-centric.

If the committee finds comfort in making this explicit in the language, it certainly would have to be very carefully drafted to avoid constraining the very judicial system the bill was designed to create. I feel that it is not necessary, and it would certainly be a fair question to pose of our departmental witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, it's over to you for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kibble, the statistics I see here tell us that people serving life sentences account for about 10% of parole applicants. Of those 10%, only 27% are granted release. I don't have the exact figures, but that seems rather low to me.

Under the current system, they must serve the 25 years. At the end of the 25 years, the Parole Board of Canada will look at whether they should be released, whether they have been rehabilitated and so on. Twenty-seven per cent of 10% is roughly equal to 2%, if that.

Wouldn't that be enough of a barrier to avoid releasing people who have committed serious crimes?