Debates of Oct. 31st, 2025

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to debate Bill C‑243, introduced by my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. Under this bill, someone who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder will no longer be able to apply for parole a second time if their first application is refused. That person would have to wait a minimum of five years before submitting a new application.

Before discussing the bill itself, I would like to talk about certain principles that govern our society, principles that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are fundamental freedoms.

Section 12 states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. There is also section 7, which states that everyone has the right to liberty. This liberty may be restricted, but only in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

My colleague from Edmonton Griesbach wishes to amend another extremely important principle that is enshrined in the law, and that is the very purpose of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act:

The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by (a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and (b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.

This shows that the goal is to strike a balance between public safety and rehabilitation. These are the guiding principles that we live by and that we are trying to reconcile.

The problem that Bill C‑243 seeks to address is real. I think that we need to pay attention to that. There are families whose loved ones have been murdered. These people appear before the Parole Board of Canada and have to relive their suffering. Obviously, that stirs up all the feelings of grief that follow such acts of violence. It is completely understandable that this is extremely hard on these people. Under the existing legislation, a person who is denied parole can reapply the following year. The victims' families say that this is too much to bear, that it is a terrible burden.

That is the problem that needs to be addressed, and I think we need to address it. Now, is the solution devised by the Conservative Party or by my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach the right one? Let us look at that together.

First, it is a solution that raises constitutional issues. I touched on that briefly. For example, I talked about section 12, which talks about cruel and unusual punishment. We could also change the Constitution. A political party could ask to reopen the Constitution and change the charter. However, as long as we are in the current system, it is there, and all laws that come out of Parliament must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Conservative government passed legislation that aimed to allow consecutive sentences. Everyone remembers when Alexandre Bissonnette walked into a mosque in Quebec City in January 2017 and killed six Muslims in cold blood while wounding five others. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Crown prosecutor had requested that Mr. Bissonnette, who pleaded guilty, be given a life sentence without parole for 25 years for each of the six murders. This meant that Mr. Bissonnette could not apply for parole for 150 years. The challenge focused on this point, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it violated an individual's fundamental right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

In its 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the sentence in this case was so absurd that it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. It far exceeded human life expectancy. The Supreme Court also stated: “A life sentence without a realistic possibility of parole presupposes the offender is beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated. This is degrading in nature and incompatible with human dignity. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.”

That is the instruction of the Supreme Court. If anyone here does not like it, we can change the Constitution. However, those are the instructions we have at this time.

Is the solution put forward in Bill C-243 likely to be challenged? Yes, definitely. This is not exactly the same thing as consecutive sentences, but it still has the same objective of delaying and restricting not the right to obtain parole, but the right to apply for parole. That is one problem with this solution. The other problem is that, when we look at the statistics, the existing parole system seems to be working. It is not true that a person who is found guilty of first-degree murder gets a life sentence. There is a possibility of parole after 25 years. However, that is not guaranteed. The offender must go before the Parole Board of Canada.

According to a 2023-24 report, only 32% of parole applications were granted. This report also shows that parole seems to help with one of the objectives of the law, rehabilitation. That is the case, for example, when day parole is granted. Day parole is when a murderer or someone convicted of another crime is allowed to leave the prison during the day but has to return at night.

Ninety-nine per cent of day parole supervision periods were completed without reoffending, while 97% of full parole supervision periods were completed without reoffending. What we are seeing is that people are being rehabilitated and the objective of the act, namely balance, is being met. Sentences need to be fair: They must not be too lenient, but they must also allow for the offender to work toward rehabilitation.

Those are the problems I see with my colleague's proposal, Bill C‑243. Several of the Conservative Party's initiatives in this Parliament give me the impression that they are beating around the bush. What they are really trying to do is amend the Constitution. I would therefore say to the Conservatives that they should come straight out and ask to reopen the Constitution. If the Conservatives believe that people who commit murder are beyond redemption, they should go for broke and propose the death penalty, and then there will be a debate on that. Right now, however, they are using bills to try to change the system.

Let me get back to what I was saying at the beginning. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, and I think we need to be sensitive to victims' families, who are forced to go through such a terrible ordeal when they have to face the murderer to oppose their parole. What else can I say about that?

First of all, we completely understand why families feel they have a duty to testify before the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, but it is important to point out that this is not mandatory. It should also be noted that, as the John Howard Society of Canada has pointed out, testimonials have no real legal impact on the PBC's decision. According to the John Howard Society of Canada, the parole process does not in any way involve holding the offender accountable for the crime they committed, because their sentencing hearing already took place during the trial. The purpose of a parole board hearing is more to determine whether the offender has begun a rehabilitation process that allows for a possible reintegration into the community. That said, two things must be taken into account: first, the pain felt by the victims' families, and second, their desire to testify.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill. However, we are open to discussing the matter. I would argue that alternatives may exist. For example, when family members come to give a statement at the first PBC hearing, their testimony could be recorded and resubmitted at the next hearing. It could be transcribed and resubmitted at a later hearing. This would ensure that the victims' viewpoint is heard, without burdening them. We are going to vote against the bill, but we are open to discussion and to taking legislative action in support of the legitimate wishes of families who have lost a loved one under horrific circumstances.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-243, Brian's bill, in honour of the memory of the late Brian Ilesic.

On June 12, 2012, Brian, with his colleagues Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano and Matthew Schuman, were working as armoured guards at the University of Alberta's Hub Mall servicing ATM machines. They were, unfortunately, with another co-worker, who, in an act of pure evil, opened fire on them, shooting Brian, Michelle and Eddie multiple times, point-blank in the back of the head as he ran off with $360,000 in cash.

Brian, Michelle and Eddie did not survive. Matthew miraculously did survive, but he has sustained life-altering injuries. His life will never be the same.

That triple murderer, who attempted to murder a fourth victim, Matthew, was the first murderer to be sentenced under a law passed by the Harper government, which simply gave judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods for persons convicted of multiple murders to take into account the life of each victim and to, frankly, see that the worst of the worst murderers never see the light of day.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice Rooke sentenced this triple murderer to 40 years behind bars for taking the lives of three people and attempting to murder a fourth. For Mike and Dianne Ilesic, Brian's parents, who were constituents of mine when I represented Northwest Edmonton and whom I have had the opportunity to get to know over the years, told me that the only sense of justice and comfort they felt after their son had been brutally murdered was believing that they would never have to sit through a parole hearing in their lifetime to face Brian's murderer. That sense of justice, that sense of comfort, was shattered in May 2022 when the Supreme Court issued the Bissonnette decision, which struck down that very just and very reasonable law.

As a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision, some of Canada's most notorious and worst murderers have seen their sentences significantly slashed. For Mike and Dianne, it meant that, as of 2022, instead of Brian's murderer being eligible for parole in 30 long years, he could suddenly be eligible for parole in only 15 years, and today, in only 12 years.

Mike and Dianne came to me, as their member of Parliament, and asked what could be done. I said to them that there was a very simple path forward, and that would be for the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court's unjust decision. However, seeing that the Liberal government is not prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause, I suggested that, at the very least, an amendment be made to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that convicted murders would not be able to apply for parole on a frequent basis, year after year, after they have served the mandatory incarceration period of 25 years for first-degree murder, and between 10 to 25 years for second-degree murder. Hence, there is Brian's law.

I championed this in the last Parliament along with Senator Boisvenu, who, like Mike and Dianne, knows what it feels like to live with having a child murdered. I want to thank Senator Denise Batters and my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach for bringing forward this bill in this Parliament.

This bill would provide that someone who is a convicted murderer has their parole considered, but only at the time of the automatic review provided for in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which occurs approximately every five years. Murder is the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. It comes with an automatic life sentence, and for good reason.

Let us face reality. If someone is convicted of first-degree murder, for example, and they serve the mandatory incarceration period of 25 years, at year 25, their parole will be considered. If, at that time, the Parole Board determines that the murderer is not releasable, as is often the case, what are the chances that they would be releasable in year 26 or year 27? They are next to nil, yet as it stands, that murderer would be able to apply year after year.

How does that make sense? How is that just? How is that fair? How is it just to put the families and friends of murder victims through frequent parole hearings, year after year? It revictimizes them, retraumatizes them and forces them to prepare victim impact statements when the ink has barely dried from the previous victim impact statement, and to what end? For what purpose? It is for a parole application that is almost certainly going to be rejected because, after all, we are talking about convicted murderers. We are talking about people who have been given an automatic life sentence.

All this bill says is that if someone has been convicted of murder, they would get a kick at the can every five years. Parliament has already determined that to be the appropriate time frame for the parole status of a convicted murderer to be reviewed. It is already in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In closing, let me say that this bill would strike the right balance between regard for the very serious gravity of the offence of murder and the public interest. It takes into account the rights and real vulnerabilities of the families and friends of victims who have to go through frequent parole hearings. It would spare the taxpayer from having to foot the bill for frequent, frivolous and hopeless parole applications. It would save scarce resources at the Correctional Service. It would also respect the charter rights of murderers, which we kept being reminded of by the parliamentary secretary and the Bloc member, because at the end of the day, their parole and incarceration status would continue to be reviewed on the fairly frequent basis of roughly every five years.

Brian's bill is straightforward, it is targeted and it is common sense. If the government has any sense of justice and any regard for the rights of victims, it will vote for it.

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

Madam Speaker, to pick up on a statement the member just made that if members had any thoughts about the victims, we would actually vote in favour of the legislation, I would say it is a very difficult issue. I recognized that from the onset.

I listened very closely to the member for Edmonton Griesbach in the presentation of the legislation. He did a fairly good job at presenting it by encapsulating it in his own words. He said that was how he felt. There was a question posed to him with respect to the legislation being charter-compliant. His response to that question was that he is not a lawyer. Nor am I. I am not a lawyer either. He was expressing how he felt.

If I pick up on that point, I believe that more than 95% of Canadians would be sympathetic and understand how the member for Edmonton Griesbach was feeling about the issue. They would be very sympathetic toward him. I for one think of the horrendous crimes we see in society. They are often televised to the nth degree or used through mediums of communication, with graphic descriptions of what has taken place. One can only imagine the feelings of family and friends as a result of that horrendous crime. I think we all need to appreciate the emotions of family, friends and the public as a whole, when we hear about crimes of a nature like the one that was cited.

I applaud the member in terms of recognizing this as Brian's bill. That is an appropriate thing to do. I believe the member was saying that Mike and Dianne are the names of the parents. I cannot imagine, which I should not even say, what the parents had to go through from the moment they heard of this horrendous crime that had taken place in the community, let alone going through the judicial system and now having to deal with the issue of parole. One can have sympathy, but to have empathy is another thing.

First and foremost, for anyone, I think we can all agree to send condolences, offer prayers and express sympathy when there is a vicious, horrendous crime. It is really important to recognize that right up front. When I think of the types of laws that we debate and talk about here on the floor of the House of Commons, we have these giant hearts, we want to be sympathetic and we want to act on our feelings. However, there are other things that we have to consider as legislators, such as the Charter of Rights and superior court rulings, particularly Supreme Court of Canada rulings. We cannot just ignore those.

The previous speaker referred to our having the notwithstanding clause. I think we need to be very concerned in regard to the degree to which parliamentarians, whether at the provincial level or at the national level, are prepared to engage and say we are going to use the notwithstanding clause.

I would take a look at the origins of the notwithstanding clause, which came in the early eighties. It was put in place for a specific reason that is, no doubt, very compelling. The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause. We have to be very concerned in regard to when members start asking to use the notwithstanding clause.

There is a reason I caution members on this. It can be upsetting. Many things take place in our judicial system that upset me. All forms of decisions are made that I might not necessarily agree with and that I suspect many of my constituents would not agree with. However, what I do know is that this is absolutely essential. It is a centrepiece to the foundations of our democracy.

We are all wearing poppies. The members of our Canadian Forces fought the wars that preceded us for the pillars of democracy, independent judiciaries and an independent media. These are the types of things were fought for. That is why we are all wearing the poppy today.

We should not, under any circumstance or even in special circumstances, turn to the notwithstanding clause. We should look at the importance of recognizing the independence of the judiciary. That means decisions will be made that we do not necessarily agree with.

As legislators, as the Bloc has expressed, that does not mean we have to take a tangible position today on a private member's bill. What it does, and this is where I applaud the member, is it allows for more discussion to take place on an important issue that no doubt Canadians are concerned about.

From a government perspective, all members should be concerned. What we have to look at, and what I look at, are two things in particular: judicial independence and what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying, and the issue of the Charter of Rights. I have personal feelings that I share with the select few individuals here in regard to the crimes that take place in our communities, but I have a legislative responsibility that I believe is absolutely critical in the discussions on issues of this nature.

I would like to think that when I look at the bigger picture of parole, whether it is day parole or full parole, the Parole Board of Canada has done a pretty good job for Canadians. I believe it has a success rate of over 90%. If it can assist in reintegrating individuals, I see that as a positive. I will not comment on what I would do in Brian's story if I was sitting on the Parole Board, but I would like to think that judicial independence also ensures that justice is served in a very real and tangible way.

To Brian's family, I am always open to hearing their perspective first-hand. I suspect they are following the debate. Whether they want to write, have a phone call or meet in person, I am always open to doing that. As a parent and as a grandparent, I know the loss of a child is pretty difficult, let alone what they have had to go through.

My prayers are with the family. We will have to wait and see what happens as the debate continues through the House.

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

Madam Speaker, As one of the parliamentarians present in the House on Fridays, I can attest that the last hour of debate is moving.

Last week, we debated Bill C‑222, introduced by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, and it was quite emotional. The bill proposed amending the Employment Insurance Act with respect to maternity leave in cases where a parent is grieving the loss of a child. It proposed that benefits continue to be paid so that the parent could have time to grieve instead of having to return to work too soon. It was very moving. Conservative colleagues who had experienced the loss of a child gave heartfelt testimonials.

We know that a private member's bill is often based on something that affects us personally, something meaningful, something we want to change or connect with on a more human level. This is what Bill C‑222 was all about.

Today, we are once again faced with a bill that affects us as parliamentarians and as human beings, because it appeals to our empathy and our humanity. Losing a loved one to violent murder is a terrible tragedy. I cannot even imagine being able to overcome such grief. Our minds immediately turn to finding solutions. How can we put a stop to this? How can we ensure that others do not have to go through what we are going through? How can we improve the system? How can we put an end to this suffering?

Often, an MP who is truly listening to their community, such as the member for Edmonton Griesbach, will introduce a bill that supports families in need. That is, if they are lucky enough to be randomly selected. I understand that. It is fundamental, and it is one of the beautiful aspects of this Parliament. As members of Parliament, we have the opportunity to introduce bills that are meaningful to us.

When my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier, I admired his eloquence. He always knows how to present the pros and cons of a bill in a very thorough manner, without judgment. He uses facts and figures that allow us to improve our understanding and knowledge. Like many of my colleagues here, I am not a lawyer. What I understood from his speech is that we must maintain a balance between listening to families and listening to prisoners, who have rights under certain laws.

I want to say to the families who have lost a loved one in such a horrific way that we empathize with them and that the parole system needs to improve. We think that some parts of the process could be significantly improved and that there are ways to prevent families from experiencing and reliving the trauma every time the offender applies for parole.

I hope the debates will continue so that we can fully explore all of the bill's implications.

[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 1:21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:21 p.m.)