House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was citizenship.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Citizenship Act Report stage of Bill C-3. The bill, C-3, amends the Citizenship Act regarding citizenship by descent, lost citizenship, and children born abroad, responding to a court ruling. Conservatives and Bloc Québécois propose amendments to include residency, language, and security requirements, arguing the original bill dilutes Canadian citizenship's value and ignores committee work. Liberals question the need for these amendments, emphasizing equal rights for all MPs. 7200 words, 1 hour in 2 segments: 1 2.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-254. The bill amends the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of hatred against Indigenous peoples, specifically to end residential school denialism. It aims to protect survivors' safety, honour their truths, and prevent the erasure of this history. 200 words.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act Second reading of Bill C-243. The bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review) to limit parole applications for murderers. It aims to reduce the trauma for victims' families by allowing applications only every five years after an initial denial. Concerns exist that the bill may violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly regarding an offender's right to liberty and protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and could impact the rehabilitation of offenders. 7000 words, 1 hour.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 298 and 309 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Bill C-3 Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Is the House ready for the question?
Bill C-3 Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 11.
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.
Bill C-3 Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, November 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 11.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m so we can begin private members' hour.
Bill C-3 Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
moved that Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, it is my profound honour to rise today to speak to my private members' bill, Bill C-243.
Before I begin, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu and Senator Denise Batters. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my esteemed colleague, the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River. I thank them for all their tireless dedication and work on Bill S-281. That was the earlier version of the legislation. It laid the groundwork for what we are discussing today.
Now, Bill S-281 was lost when Parliament was prorogued, but its spirit and purpose endure in the current bill, Bill C-243.
The bill is dedicated to the memory of the late Brian Ilesic. Brian was just 35 years old when he was murdered. He was described as a devoted father, a loyal friend and a cherished son.
This callous crime unfolded just after midnight on June 15, 2012. It happened when Brian and three others, Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano and Matthew Schuman, were working as armoured car guards. They were employed by G4S Cash Solutions and were servicing ATMs in the HUB Mall, a food court on the University of Alberta campus in Edmonton. Suddenly, their co-worker, Travis Baumgartner, turned on them. He shot and killed Brian, Michelle and Eddie with point-blank gunshots to the back of the head. After shooting his co-workers, Baumgartner locked them in a vault behind the ATM and fled in the armoured truck.
It was a cold-blooded act of violence that shocked students and rocked our community. Edmontonians have seldom witnessed anything so brutal.
Miraculously, Brian's colleague Matthew survived, but to this day he lives with life-altering injuries. Brian's 12-year-old daughter, Kiannah, was left without a dad. She will grow up with fond memories of her father, but that is all she will have. She will never have her father at her side when she graduates from high school. Her father will not be there on her wedding day. Her children will never know their grandfather. Every father lives to be there for such precious occasions, but death has robbed their family of these precious moments.
In 2012, this savage murderer was found guilty. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. It was the harshest sentence delivered in Canada since 1962. There was some justice in this tragic story, or so we believed. The sentence correctly reflected the depth of the suffering he caused: three people murdered in cold blood, one person disabled for life. However, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2022 overturned the law passed by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The law had allowed judges to give consecutive sentences in the event of multiple murders.
Brian's murderer ended three lives in a horrendous, heartless act, but because of the court's decision, the man who killed Brian could now be eligible to apply for parole in about a dozen years. Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, will now have to decide far earlier than expected whether they will attend a parole hearing for the man who callously murdered their son.
It gets worse. As it now stands, if a convicted murderer applies for parole and is denied the first time, he or she could apply for another parole hearing just one year later. We can think of the trauma that Mike and Dianne would face in that situation. It would emotionally scar them. It would bring back horrific memories of their loving son's senseless murder.
Bill C-243 seeks to right that wrong. It stands for justice: justice for Brian, justice for his family and justice for every victim whose voice was silenced too soon at the hands of a murderer.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022, Mike and Dianne bravely spoke out against the decision, and they have repeatedly spoken out, not just for their son but for every family member who has suffered at the hands of a cruel killer. Dianne said she and her husband felt deflated by the Supreme Court's decision. That is understandable. She went on to say that she and her husband had lost faith in the system. The system failed them.
I have recently spoken with Mike and Dianne. They are a true testament of strength and resilience. While we were discussing my proposed bill, they told me this: “This bill would certainly lessen the trauma that victims go through before, during and after the parole process takes place. Avoiding frequent trips for the purpose of attending parole hearings would assure victims that the perpetrators of the crime remain contained in jail.”
Mike and Dianne are pleading that all politicians across party lines will answer their prayers. They told me to please tell my colleagues this: “The bill supports all victims left behind. Parole hearings tend to be emotionally draining. Please stop the process of having frequent parole hearings. Please have the House of Commons approve Brian's bill.”
Mike and Dianne said it so eloquently. The bill is about protecting victims. It recognizes the horrific heartache families have gone through, and it aims to protect them. Currently, convicted murderers can apply for parole each and every year after having served their minimum sentence. That means that each and every year, victims' families could come face to face with their loved one's murderer. Victims' families have to endure this every year to stop murderers from getting parole.
Can anyone imagine facing, each and every year, the murderer who killed their son, or having to face the person who killed their daughter or best friend, or who murdered their mother? Murderers simply should not be able to revictimize the loved ones of their victims at parole hearings.
Paul Bernardo is another notorious murderer who has plagued our nation. He kidnapped, tortured and killed 15-year-old Kristen French. He kidnapped, tortured and killed 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy. The lives of these two young women were cruelly snuffed out.
Bernardo has had three parole hearings to date. His first hearing was in October 2018. He was rightly denied. His second hearing was in June 2021; he was once again denied. His third hearing was in November 2024, and he was denied again. That means that the French and Mahaffy families attended two parole board hearings for Bernardo in less than three years. That is outrageous.
The families of Bernardo's victims have been open and honest about the pain the parole hearings have brought them, and it serves to illustrate how painful it is for anyone in this country to have to face the murderer of their loved one.
I want to give a voice to Kristen French's mother, Donna. This is what she had to say about the repeated parole applications:
It seems that just as the ink has dried on our previous victim impact statement, Doug and I have to muster up the strength to prepare a second statement.
This is a painful and difficult process as there are no words that can capture the depth of our loss, anguish and despair.
I will also share these powerful words from Donna:
For those who say that time heals, they don't know the excruciating pain that comes from such a horrific loss.
Time doesn't heal the pain. The pain is a life sentence.
Parole hearings for multiple murders are likely far more common than many Canadians would believe. Let us look at a small piece of that dark history.
Between 2009 and 2010, the Parole Board held 23 full hearings for people convicted of multiple murders. As of 2011, there were 4,420 offenders serving life sentences for first- and second-degree murder. Of those, 421 killed more than one person, and of those, 95 were out on full parole. We are in a country that most of the world believes is safe, but it gets worse. Between 2022 and 2023, there were 199 parole hearings where victims gave impact statements.
I read a Public Safety Canada report from 2010, and the report stated:
...families of a homicide victim appear to feel a sense of responsibility to be present to represent their loved one(s). Some families have expressed the view that their presence is essential so that their loved one is not forgotten in a process that is largely focused on the offender.
It is therefore a burden on victims that, presently, hearings for those serving life and indefinite sentences can apply for parole....
We as a country must do better for victims. My bill would spare scores of families from suffering and enduring additional, frequent pain from the justice system. Again, this bill would mean murderers would only get to apply for parole every five years after their first denial.
Our justice system needs to protect families. Families should come first, not murderers. Bill C-243 would take common-sense action to protect grieving families.
With this bill, Brian's parents Mike and Dianne would not have to face, every year, the monster who killed their son. In my view and in the view of the majority of Canadians, the current process makes a mockery of justice.
I want to give my personal thanks to Mike and Dianne for being so brave and so forthcoming in their support for this important piece of legislation. I sincerely hope and pray that my fellow parliamentarians on both sides of this House will support it. Please do it. Do it for Mike and Dianne.
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite was a journalist in his former life, as I was in my former life. In that role, we get to know a lot of victims of crime. I appreciate the heart the member brought to this legislation and the intent behind it. I, too, know some of the victims he has spoken of today.
I wonder if the member has any concerns that this bill, as it is written, may violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and may therefore not pass muster when it comes to the Supreme Court of Canada. He mentioned that consecutive terms were thrown out by the Supreme Court at one point. Does he have concerns about this, and if so, what would be his remedy?
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not about to do lawyers' work or judges' work.
This bill comes from the heart. We need to recognize the pain of these victims. I have to admit that I choked up reading some of the thoughts from Mike and Dianne, who have to face that monster every year. Every year the same person is coming before them and they have to relive it. I can imagine they probably do not sleep at night in the weeks leading up to the hearing. I would imagine they feel tense and tearful. I have gotten to know this fine couple. The fact that they are willing to be so brave and stand up and bring up the memories of their son is so admirable.
I beg members across the way to please get on board with this bill. It is up to the courts to decide the law, but let us rule from the heart on this one.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach for his account and the testimony he presented to us in the House.
We have to understand the pain and suffering that victims go through when they have to return to the Parole Board. Everyone can understand that.
Has my colleague considered alternatives to limiting the number of times a murderer can apply to the Parole Board? Has he considered other alternatives? For example, we could arrange for the testimony of relatives to be sent to the board without them having to travel and face their loved one's murderer.
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, the whole intent of the bill is basically to do that, to accomplish that. Instead of the offender coming back year after year, it would mean they had only one shot every five years. Whether somebody appears live, by video or any other way, it still brings up those awful feelings and just puts them through sheer hell. This is the ideal bill to solve that whole issue, help victims and put victims ahead of murderers for once.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, following up on the question posed by the member for Hamilton Mountain, I would note that someone convicted of murder receives an automatic life sentence for good reason.
With respect to the statutory review provided for in the bill, it is one that Parliament has already decided upon and is in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There is an automatic review every five years. That is the time Parliament determined to be the appropriate time frame, having regard for the gravity of the offence of murder and the fact that it is an automatic life sentence.
Is the member aware that that provision of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act has been struck down by the court? If not, why would the bill—
Bill C-243 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is why the member is a lawyer. I am a former journalist. I thank the member.
Bill C-243 Corrections and Conditional Release ActPrivate Members' Business
October 31st, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.
La Prairie—Atateken Québec
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-243, an important piece of legislation formerly known as Brian's bill, in honour of Brian Ilesic, a young man who was tragically murdered in Edmonton.
I think we are all aware of the ongoing trauma that victims' families experience during parole hearings when they are forced to relive the heinous crimes committed against their loved ones over and over, as countless parole applications are filed by individuals convicted of first- or second-degree murder.
Bill C‑243 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Under the proposed amendments, once the Parole Board of Canada has made an initial decision to cancel, deny or revoke an offender's parole, the offender would be required to comply with the statutory time frames for future reviews. They would not be able to reapply annually.
The idea behind Bill C‑243 is simple: to bring some comfort and peace to the victims' families. This bill responds to the legitimate concerns of Canadians, who believe that our justice system sometimes prioritizes the rights of criminals over the rights and needs of victims. It recognizes that a life sentence for murder is a serious punishment for the irreversible loss of a human life.
Repeated applications for parole force families to constantly relive the worst moments of their lives, compounding their suffering indefinitely. For many families, this measure does not do justice to the victims. Instead, it prolongs their suffering.
We have a duty in the House to listen to these victims and take action. We owe it to them to put an end to the emotional suffering they experience every year or every other year when hearings are held and they come face to face with the person who murdered their loved one. The premise of this bill, namely to limit excessive parole applications after an initial refusal, is a necessary measure to support victims and to make the judicial process more compassionate toward them.
That being said, we also have a solemn duty as parliamentarians to uphold the supreme law of our land, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A law that is bound to be challenged in court at the earliest opportunity does not serve the best interests of victims if it cannot pass the charter test. Although the principle behind Bill C‑243 is commendable, in its current form, the bill could give rise to significant legal challenges over an offender's charter right to liberty and security of person.
Let me explain. The ability to apply for parole even after being previously denied is fundamental to an offender's successful rehabilitation, something that our criminal justice system is also designed to encourage. Parole is not a “get out of jail free” card. It is a form of conditional release, a structured and supervised transition from incarceration to release into the community. For offenders serving a life sentence for murder, parole is always granted at the discretion of the Parole Board of Canada. Offenders have to earn it through a demonstrable improvement in their behaviour, a reduction in risk and an ongoing commitment to their rehabilitation.
Even if an offender is granted parole, they continue to serve the remainder of their sentence under strict supervision and stringent conditions. In offering offenders the opportunity to earn conditional release, we strongly encourage them to participate in the correctional program. We address the root causes of their criminal behaviour, such as substance abuse or mental health issues, and develop a credible release plan with community support measures.
Furthermore, when the Parole Board assesses an offender's case, it makes a decision based on a thorough review of all the information available to it. This includes victim impact statements, psychological assessments, the offender's behaviour while incarcerated, and their progress in their correctional plan.
The Parole Board must be satisfied that the offender's release will not pose an undue risk to society. If the risk cannot be safely managed in the community, parole must be denied. This happens regularly.
That said, parole allows for a more gradual, more structured transition with conditions that include ongoing supervision and the ability to return the person to custody if they fail to meet their conditions.
By involving offenders in their own rehabilitation and providing them with a framework for supervised release, we are actively working to reduce the risk of recidivism. This measure helps prevent future victimization and improves the safety of our communities. Reducing the risk of recidivism is one of the ways we are fighting crime.
As parliamentarians, we must ensure that any legislation we pass is guided by fairness as our objective, while fully respecting the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We must strike a balance between taking victims' needs into account and ensuring that all legal rights are respected. That is why I want to emphasize that further analysis is needed to ensure that the bill is charter compliant. This legislation must be fair and respect the fundamental charters and principles of Canadian justice.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If you seek it, I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House to adopt this motion.
That, in relation to its study on the development of critical minerals in Canada, three members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to Sudbury, Ontario; Saguenay, Quebec; Montréal, Quebec; and Québec, Quebec, in the Fall of 2025, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Committee TravelPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker Scott Reid
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
