Debates of Nov. 18th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a licensed firearms owner myself. I am not a criminal. I think that the current firearms confiscation is money being spent in the wrong area. We are confiscating firearms from legal firearms owners, and it does not properly address illegal firearm crime.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from experts, since 2015, that if we brought in Liberal bail, we would have problems in our streets. Ten years later, we have premiers from coast to coast demanding to get rid of the Liberal bail. We have heard from police associations that want the Liberal bail gone. We now have lip service from the Liberals about reforming the system.

What we really need is to go back to how it was before they were elected, before Bill C-5 and before Bill C-75. I would like to hear the member's comments on why he thinks that the government is so deaf to all the premiers and police associations that are demanding this.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Liberals are deaf to this because they do not want to face the fact that their policies of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have failed and that they would have to admit defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an amazing question that I just witnessed there. At the end of the day, there is wide support for the legislation. The Prime Minister, who was just elected Prime Minister earlier this year, has brought forward substantial bail reform legislation. I think that the stakeholders who are out there and I are very pleased that it would appear that we might even see it get to the committee stage. The real issue is whether the Conservative Party will allow for Canadians to have bail reform legislation in place, passed through the system, before the end of the year. That is what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill needs a lot of work. It is going to depend on whether the Liberals are going to work with us on addressing the issues that we have with the bail reform.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Jordan decision stipulates that, once a certain time limit has been exceeded, criminals who have committed murder, sexual offences, or acts of terrorism may be released on the grounds that the delay in bringing their case to trial has been unreasonable.

Would my colleague agree with us so that the Jordan decision cannot be invoked to justify the release of these individuals solely on the grounds that the proceedings have taken too long?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a lot of work to be done. We have many issues to tackle. I think that the Liberals need to address some financial issues with the provinces regarding court systems and prison systems.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult debate, and in the brief time I have, I want to thank members for contributing to this from all sides of the House. Canadians are crying out for bail reform, but we are still crying with a certain amount of lack of knowledge. This debate needs more evidence. Now, Bill C-14 attempts to balance things and attempts to recognize that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental, but there are some other principles here that are being, I fear, so politicized that we are losing track of a basic reality.

Bail is granted to people who have not been convicted of anything. Bail is so that people who are innocent can continue to hold down a job, be with their families and contribute to society until we have determined whether they are guilty of anything, so we must recall that our system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence.

Lawyers have studied this bill in the Canadian Bar Association. I used to be a practising lawyer, so I used to be a member, but do not hold it against me; there is a recovery program for lawyers as well. The Canadian Bar Association has looked at this and said that the effect of Bill C-14 would be that innocent people would be jailed when they place a reverse onus on someone and they have to prove why they should be allowed to be out on bail. The expression “out on bail” is used in this place as though we are talking about convicted murderers who suddenly get a free day pass.

We do need bail reform, but let us look at it with a larger lens in the time I have. The administration of justice is not purely a federal responsibility. For example, are sureties ever required to provide the money that they put down as a surety for someone who is out on bail? The answer is no. If a person is out on bail and has asked someone to provide a financial guarantee, a surety, that they will abide by bail conditions, and they then violate those bail conditions, almost never is the surety asked to provide the money they have said they would provide. This is all provincial jurisdiction.

Another really significant issue is that the provincial courts are understaffed and underfunded, and it takes so long to get people through the system to determine their guilt or their innocence that many of the jails can be overcrowded. Provincial and territorial jails are overcrowded, yet 71% of the people within provincial and territorial jails who apply for bail do not get it. Much of the debate in this place since Bill C-14 was tabled has been based on the presumption that people get bail in Canada easily, but the data does not show that.

I also want to mention that we have a real problem with the collection of that data. Federally and provincially, we have no data at all on how often a person on bail commits a crime. We have lots of anecdotal evidence, and it must not be discounted, because the conscience of a community and the pain and grief of the stories that we have been hearing may be anecdotal, but they are important and cannot be dismissed. However, making significant changes to bail reform should be based on evidence. That evidence needs to be collected. There is no standardized data collection from the federal, provincial and territorial governments on how people conduct themselves on bail. It is not collected, so we do not know.

Passing laws in this place is serious business. Passing laws regarding criminal justice that could result in more innocent people being in jail is very serious business. I do not like flying blind. I do not like knowing from the experts that we simply do not have the data to know how many of the people who receive bail and are on bail conditions honour those conditions, whether bail contributes to crime and whether we could do so much better if we funded provincial courts and funded more judges in provincial courts to make sure that the time between arrest and release is very, very brief.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-14 at second reading.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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 invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it pass on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I 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)

Parliamentary Budget Officer

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on November 17 by the member for Edmonton West respecting a letter from the Parliamentary Budget Officer concerning the response from the comptroller general of Canada, which was tabled by the Speaker on November 17. I submit that the government is working in good faith to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information his office has requested in a timely manner. This is in keeping with subsection 79.4(1), which states the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled to free and timely access to information under the control of the government. This is not in dispute at all.

The letter from the comptroller general to the Parliamentary Budget Officer states the government will comply with and endeavour to respond to the request by early December. I would further note that the request for information by the Parliamentary Budget Officer had a due date of November 19, which is seven days after the Parliamentary Budget Officer filed notice with the Speaker, on November 13, and three days before the member raised his question of privilege.

This is not a new concept for members to understand. When the House or a committee of the House would like information from the government, government members work with opposition members to come to a compromise on or an understanding of when the information can practically be provided, and in some cases, they agree to a mechanism to provide protected information that would not otherwise be made public. In exceptional circumstances, the Speaker is called upon to mediate the request.

The facts before the House are clear. The Parliamentary Budget Officer requested information from the government, and the government responded that it was working on compiling the information but needed some more time to produce it. That is how this works.

The comptroller general provided a justification in her letter as to why the government would need a bit more time to do so. She said:

As you know, proposed savings from the CER are subject to parliamentary approval. Once approved, they will be communicated to all relevant parties in a timely manner in accordance with the obligation of the Employer to do so when an employee's position may be impacted. Circumventing this process by providing the information to a third party beforehand could compromise employees' trust in the Government and jeopardize the management-union relationship.... Once departments have had a chance to review decisions, update their plans where relevant, and once the Budget has received the support of Parliament, implementation, including workforce changes, will begin in a transparent and respectful manner. This will ensure that we are providing you and your office with accurate and reliable information.

The member is suggesting something that is not the case. The government wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on November 10, nine days before the due date set out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to advise him that certain steps would be required in order to comply with the request. Moreover, the member suggested that members needed this specific information before they could vote on the ways and means motion for the budget. This is not accurate.

The motion the House had before it on Monday, November 17, was, “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.” A slight delay in providing the information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not in any way interfere with members' ability to vote on the general ways and means motion on November 17, nor has the government stated or intimated that it will not comply with the request of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In fact, the opposite is true. The government has stated compelling reasons for a slight delay to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to ensure that he and his office are provided with accurate and reliable information to enable him and his office to report to Parliament.

In conclusion, there are no facts before the House or any grounds to find this matter to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

moved that Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and I thank my constituents for the trust they have vested in me to represent our region, which is blessed with a rich history and endless splendour. Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies would not be the great region it is if not for the citizens who call the region home. I am honoured to be their voice and advocate here in Parliament.

Canadians invest their trust in us, and they expect and deserve a return on that investment. They look to Parliament and every member of this House and the other chamber to work collaboratively to deliver meaningful results for Canadians.

What kinds of results do Canadians want? When I speak to the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, I am told that citizens want affordability, opportunity, conservation, safety and security. For safety and security, Canadians want laws and regulations that effectively denounce and deter crimes, and Parliament has work to do in this regard.

Our fellow Canadians also tell me that they want transparency and accountability in government. When Parliament or a government entity makes a decision that directly impacts the lives of citizens, citizens appropriately expect transparency and accountability in how the decision was determined. Governments are meant to be led and administered by representatives chosen by Canadians. It is important that Canadians be provided explanations of why decisions are made and how they are made.

Transparency and accountability are core principles of our democracy, and the bill we debate today seeks to enhance the application of these essential principles, specifically for the benefit of those victimized by crime.

I am honoured to be the sponsor of Bill C-221, which contains proposals identical to those in bills introduced in previous Parliaments. The proposals in this bill were proposed in the 44th Parliament by my friend and former colleague Dr. Colin Carrie, who served as the hon. member for Oshawa for over 20 years. Dr. Carrie was inspired to champion the proposals in our bills by the tragic events and pained experiences of a constituent of his, Ms. Lisa Freeman, whose father Roland Slingerland was brutally killed in Oshawa in 1991.

Ms. Freeman's experiences were truly tragic. From the murder of her father, numerous bail procedures and the eventual release of her father's murderer, Ms. Freeman experienced years of stress, anxiety and pain, some of which was caused by her uncertainty over the status of the man who murdered her father.

We as parliamentarians must examine the experiences of victims of crime like Ms. Freeman and resolve to support legislative proposals that reduce the stress, anxiety and other burdens that victims of crime live with.

Another hon. colleague, the new member for Oshawa, worked on Dr. Carrie's bill in the last Parliament as a member of his staff and will also be speaking to Bill C-221 today. I understand she will provide more context of Ms. Freeman's experiences, which were the original inspiration for the proposals in this bill. I thank her for her contributions and for being the seconder of the bill today.

In the last Parliament, Dr. Carrie's Bill C-320 progressed to a very advanced stage in the legislative process, with unanimous support at all stages of review by both Houses. In the last Parliament, Bill C-320 passed committee review in the other place and was reported back to that chamber December 17, 2024, which was the last day the 44th Parliament was convened. When the 44th Parliament was dissolved last March, Bill C-320 died on the Order Paper, ending its path, but I have chosen to bring these proposals back because they need to be passed.

The bill we are examining today, Bill C-221, contains the same proposals as Bill C-320 did in the last Parliament. I hope that members of both Houses may once again support these worthy proposals and work collaboratively and unanimously, as we did in the last Parliament, to move them to completion in this 45th Parliament.

Bill C-221 is aimed at supporting victims of crime. As such, it is important to expand on what is meant when we speak of victims of crime.

This bill seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That act defines a victim as follows:

an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission of the offence;

By this definition, a victim is not just the person or persons who have directly suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of a crime. People who suffer emotional harm are also victims.

When a criminal offence results in the taking of a life, yes, the individual whose life is taken is a victim, but the suffering mentioned in the definition of a victim in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not end with the one who loses their life. The suffering includes those who experience emotional harm because of criminal behaviour. They are also victims.

This bill is important because it proposes to increase a victim's understanding of corrections and conditional release. Under current federal law, victims who share their contact details with the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada and who fulfill the legal definition of victim are entitled to specific information about those responsible for harming them. This information includes key dates indicating when offenders may be eligible for review and release. Should this bill pass, it would amend the law to ensure that victims know when offenders could be released and, importantly, are provided the reasons for how officials determined the eligibility dates.

Victims of crime and their families seek clarity and transparency. They deserve to have their voices heard within the justice system and to know the reasons behind release or parole. By providing victims of offenders more advanced information about crucial eligibility and review dates, this bill is aimed at providing the clarity and transparency that victims seek. This legislation also lets victims know that we, as their elected representatives, hear them.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposals in this bill were inspired by and advocated for by Ms. Lisa Freeman, who was victimized when her father was brutally murdered. Ms. Freeman suffered the exact kind of emotional harm that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act cites in defining the word “victim”.

Crimes, especially those that cause the loss of human life, have a ripple effect, like how a stone thrown in a pond creates ripples that emanate from the point of impact outward in all directions. There are many Canadians whose lives have been forever changed by emotional harm caused by criminal acts, especially crimes that take the life of a loved one.

I am one of those Canadians. I have a sense of the stress, anxiety and fear that victims like Lisa Freeman, her family and others in similar situations experience when they are not provided an explanation as to why the individual who has traumatized their life forever is released. I have that sense of understanding because every time I have to drive past a local pub only a few kilometres from my home, I experience it.

It is a pub that was built by an individual who only a few years earlier had killed my brother while driving impaired. My brother Rick was 17 when he was killed 47 years ago, and it still pains me every time I drive past that place that was built by the man who killed him. My mother and father, and the rest of our family, paid the great price of losing Rick, and we never knew or understood how the person who took his life was released and seemingly continued his life as if nothing had happened. I have never spoken about this pain before, not even to family.

Across Canada there are victims of crime who live in fear of the release of the criminal who has already caused much suffering and loss, and when the release occurs, victims are not provided with the reasons for the release.

I have brought the proposals of the bill back to the current Parliament for the many victims of crime across Canada who live with the burden of being victims of crime. When the proposals of the bill were debated and examined in the last Parliament, victims' rights advocates provided compelling testimony detailing how the passage of the proposals could support victims of crime, victims who already carry burdens. In the last Parliament, MPs and senators heard the voices of victims and afforded the proposals unanimous support, which carried the proposals very close to completion.

The 44th Parliament came to an end. Now, in the 45th Parliament, every parliamentarian is faced with a new opportunity to once again listen to the voices of victims and to move the proposals forward for the benefit of victims of crime in all 343 constituencies represented in the House.

I wholeheartedly believe in the bill, and I hope that every member of the House, the members of the committee that would study the bill, and the members of the other chamber will once again recognize the merit of this bill, Bill C-221. In this 45th Parliament, let us hear the voices of victims and act on their behalf, as we did in the 44th Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague. Sometimes, especially when we sit on Fridays, we study private members' bills that are based on deeply moving personal experiences. I thank my colleague for introducing this bill and I assure him of the Bloc Québécois's support.

My question is this. Would it not be possible to go a step further in the bill and stipulate that families be automatically registered to receive information, rather than the opposite, where the victim's family has to request the information? Does my colleague not think it would be simpler if it were automatic?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a thoughtful question. I believe that having the release of the information automatically happen might also impose on victims' rights, or that some victims may not want to know. To have it mandatorily imposed on them may cause more problems for some. I do not think it would be a great burden for them to sign up, and if the bill passes, at least they would be provided with the details of the reasons for the decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start off by complimenting my colleague across the way. I know that at times it is very difficult to share a personal story. With the loss of a brother, Rick in this case, we can only imagine and have a great deal of sympathy, but unless one has lived through the experience, it is difficult to have that empathy.

I do want to express my condolences. I could see the passion the member speaks of, and I respect that.

We need to consider victims. I appreciate the legislation the member has brought to the House, and I look forward to its passage to committee. If the member wants to add anything else to his general comments, I would appreciate that too.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments, and I appreciate everyone here today, and the people back home, listening.

I am not speaking just for myself; I am speaking for the thousands of victims out there. I can manage. Members can tell it is emotional for me, but there are others who, I think, struggle with it far more than I do. It is for them that we as parliamentarians must see the bill through to completion as soon as possible.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that my heart is filled with emotion as I rise here today to speak to Bill C‑221, especially after listening to my colleague earlier. This bill is not just about tinkering with the wording, regulations and provisions. As the House will hear from my remarks, this is about restoring some sincerity in how we treat human beings. I see this as something deeply human. I am talking about the way our justice system recognizes—or, unfortunately, sometimes forgets—those who have suffered the most, whom I will refer to as victims.

When we hear from victims, they are not asking for any sort of privilege. They are asking for something much more essential: to be seen. They are asking us to listen to them. They are asking for respect. Too often, they tell us that they feel invisible in a system they do not understand, a system where decisions that affect them are made without explanation, without context and sometimes even without warning. That is precisely what this bill seeks to remedy.

Many victims feel hurt the most when they feel left out of the processes that determine what happens to the offender who has devastated their lives. Unfortunately, finding out that an offender is eligible for a temporary absence or parole without understanding how these calculations are made feels like an additional punishment for the victims. It is a punishment that we can and should avoid.

Let us be clear. Our institutions, like Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, do important, sensitive work. They support more than 9,000 victims a year. They provide a portal for victims, as well as information letters, help lines and personalized support. I want to highlight this work, which is neither simple nor obvious. Despite these efforts, something fundamental is still missing, and that thing that is missing most of all is understanding. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about people. We are talking about the victims' understanding not just of the dates but of the meaning behind the dates; not just of the decisions that were made but of the logic behind those decisions. Understanding is not just an administrative detail. Understanding means being able to breathe again. Understanding means being less afraid of the unexpected. Understanding means regaining some control in a life that has been turned upside down.

The purpose of Bill C-221 is exactly that: to explain to victims how and why certain key dates are calculated and what this means for them in practical terms. It is a simple but profoundly fair approach. It does not challenge the courts' decisions. It does not compromise public safety. It does not hinder correctional professionals. It reinforces a fundamental principle: the dignity of individuals, the dignity of human beings, the dignity of victims.

We know that this issue transcends party lines. This is not about politics; it is about compassion and humanity. Behind every case, there is a story. Today, we heard our colleague talk about one such story. When we listen to the details of that story, we can truly understand the depth of the anger that victims and their loved ones may feel. That is where a bill must come from. It comes from a feeling of being neglected, of not being listened to, and of not understanding exactly what is going on.

That is what inspired this bill: a family's suffering. Naturally, I share that point of view because it is vital that we do something about such situations. It is our duty to do so, for the spouse living with a silence that will never go away, for the family retraumatized by every court update, decision and deadline. This bill will not fix everything, but it is a concrete step forward toward a system that is better at recognizing victims and their experiences.

When we give victims information that is clear, transparent, understandable and written in plain language, we are not just explaining our calculations; we are sending the message that their suffering matters and their safety matters. Their presence in the legal process is not incidental, and it is not a number; it is essential.

I truly believe that a justice system is stronger when it protects those who have been made vulnerable. That is why I believe that this bill is a necessary step toward building a fairer, more humane and more dignified system for every Canadian.

It may be a small step for the legislative apparatus, but it is a huge step for every victim who, as of tomorrow, will finally get the explanation they have waited so long for. I encourage all members to participate in the study of this bill and to vote in favour of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to do so earlier, but I would like to once again commend my colleague for introducing this bill. After listening to all the speeches, I can see that members largely agree: Victims have rights, including the right to information.

The bill that our colleague is proposing is almost a carbon copy of another bill, Bill C‑320, which passed all legislative stages in the House and in committee but unfortunately died on the Order Paper. I would say that the bill before us today is part of a series of laws or regulations that aim to modernize the entire parole process by imposing certain conditions. It is high time that we focused on victims and their rights when someone has committed a horrible crime against a loved one.

The summary of the bill reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that information that is disclosed to the victim of an offence regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole must include an explanation of how the dates were determined.

It may seem simple. A family that has experienced a terrible tragedy will learn the conditions, know why the offender is allowed to be released, why a certain date was chosen and when it will take effect. Some families need this information in order to complete their grieving process or even to feel safe. As my colleague also said, some families do not want to know. Not knowing may be a coping mechanism or part of their grieving process.

However, like my colleague, we believe it is important to review all the elements mentioned in his bill, such as the eligibility and review dates applicable to temporary absences or parole. It is also important to review the date on which an offender is to be released on temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release. The eligibility and review dates applicable to unescorted temporary absences or parole must also be reviewed. The bill also requires that the date of escorted or unescorted temporary absences or parole be communicated.

Bill C-221 creates an obligation to communicate with the family to provide additional information about the abuser. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees with that. We agree that victims who want and need help must be informed of the reasons for these dates. Some families or loved ones could even be given access to this information without necessarily making a request. We could ensure that these people receive the information automatically, but remove them from the list if they are not interested in receiving it.

The goal is to simplify a process and a task that often falls on the victims' shoulders. If they do not want to receive the information, they could say so, while everyone who wants it would receive it automatically. The idea is to create a very clear process, because the way that all this information is being managed for the victims seems rather inconsistent.

Here is an example that happened recently in Quebec. The family members of a victim asked for more information about the release of the criminal who murdered their daughter. I am talking about 17-year-old Brigitte Serre, who was stabbed 72 times during an armed robbery at a gas station in Saint‑Léonard in 2006. The person who committed the crime, Sébastien Simon, had his first parole hearing. The family testified against his release.

A few years later, the family learned that a hearing would soon be held to determine whether the prisoner could be granted escorted release, for example, but they were not informed until after the fact. The family learned several months later that the inmate had received permission to leave prison and even work up to 40 hours a week at a community organization, without them being informed, without their knowledge. The family condemned this situation and wanted to know why they had only been informed after the fact.

The bill introduced by my Conservative colleague would enable families to seek redress and would prevent what Brigitte Serre's family went through in Quebec from happening again. Basically, it seeks to require the Correctional Service of Canada to document and explain why a prisoner was released on a given date and what assessment that decision was based on.

Of course, under the current legislation, some information is communicated to the families, but no details are shared regarding dates. Families are asking for that information to be shared with them. Some even need it. If an inmate manages to get a hearing and convince their social workers and caseworkers that they are following a rehabilitation process, with an action plan in place to help them gradually reintegrate into society, it is important to communicate that to the family.

The bill's demands are fairly simple, but there are still some questions. It establishes an important principle, that of informing the victims' families, but it does not really specify how this information should be communicated to families. Should it come in writing? Should it be accompanied by some form of support? For example, if a family receives a call or an email informing them that their child's killer has been granted temporary absences as of a certain date, could that retraumatize them?

The Bloc Québécois wants to know how this information will be communicated to families, especially since our political party believes that they should be supported when learning the reasons for release. We must acknowledge that no victim's family will be happy to learn that the murderer or the person who killed their loved one will be granted escorted or unescorted temporary absences before 25 years have passed. That is why we are concerned about how this news will be announced to the families.

I do not know if we will have the opportunity to discuss this at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I think that part is essential. I think we can all agree that victims have a right to information. Now we will have to discuss how that information is shared. We are somewhat concerned about how Correctional Service Canada will make this requirement part of its procedures, especially given the staffing shortage, and about how this information will be handled and communicated to families.

That said, we know that victims' associations have been vigorously advocating for the information to be given to families and victims. We agree with all of their requests. I encourage my colleague to push for his bill because we definitely want the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study it. This would give the committee the tremendous privilege of contributing to amending an act to make it more compassionate, more considerate and more respectful of victims' right to information.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in support of this bill. It holds deep meaning for victims of violent crime and for me, personally, as a resident and the newest member of Parliament for Oshawa.

Bill C-221 builds upon years of advocacy for greater transparency and fairness in Canada's parole system. It also continues the work of my predecessor, the former member of Parliament for Oshawa, Dr. Colin Carrie, who introduced this initiative as Bill C-320 in the 44th Parliament. It is inspired by the strength and determination of Oshawa resident, and my good friend, Lisa Freeman. I had the privilege of working with Dr. Carrie during the time when he was advancing this bill. We listened to victims and pushed for a justice system that acknowledges their needs. I saw how deeply Lisa's experiences and advocacy shaped this legislation.

Bill C-221 is rooted in real stories and responds directly to real failures that have left victims without clear information, timely notice or the transparency they deserve. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, for reintroducing this crucial legislation and providing me the honour of seconding it.

To understand why this bill matters, we have to understand its origin. More than 30 years ago, my community of Oshawa was shaken by the murder of Roland Slingerland. I remember that time. I was a young teenager, and the shock of his death spread quickly through the city. People talked about it in school, in the neighbourhood and around the dinner table. It was one of those moments that made the entire community stop and confront the reality of violence in our midst.

Roland was a caretaker at a rooming house. He was a navy veteran and a father of four daughters. He was murdered while trying to protect a woman fleeing domestic violence. The axe murderer who killed him had gone looking for his estranged girlfriend, and Roland refused to reveal where she was living. He did what any decent person would do. He put someone else's safety first, and for that courageous act, he lost his life.

What our community later learned was even harder to process. The man who murdered Roland Slingerland was on parole at the time for previous offences. He had already been released back into the community. The system that was supposed to safeguard the public did not do so. It failed Roland and his family, and the impact of that failure has lasted more than three decades.

For Lisa, that impact did not end with the trial. She has spent most of her adult life navigating the parole process, not by choice but because every decision made about the offender directly affects her sense of safety and her family's well-being.

However, time and time again, she was left without the information she needed. Major decisions were made without her knowledge. Transfers happened without notice. Security levels changed with no explanation. Hearing dates shifted unpredictably. Too often, the reasons behind these decisions were never provided at all. At times, she was shut out of the process completely, except Lisa refused to stay silent.

Many Canadians believe that, when a judge hands down a life sentence with no parole for 25 years, the meaning is clear, but for victims and their families, the reality is far more complicated. There are multiple forms of conditional release, multiple review stages and multiple opportunities for offenders to return to the community, sometimes years earlier than the public expects or the sentence implies.

When victims are not given the information they need, this complexity becomes overwhelming and damaging, and it forces families to relive trauma again and again. This is what Bill C-221 addresses. The current mandate under the Parole Board of Canada is that it is able to provide certain information to registered victims, but this practice is inconsistent today. Victims do not always receive timely or adequate information. They are left with vague dates, incomplete updates and no understanding of how decisions were made. This is not a minor administrative issue. It is a systematic failure that has caused real harm.

This bill would strengthen the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by requiring, by law, that when the Parole Board provides information about eligibility dates or review dates for temporary absences, releases or parole, it must include an explanation of how those dates were determined.

Victims would no longer receive information without context. They would no longer be forced to interpret a system that feels deliberately opaque. They would receive clear reasoning so they can understand what is happening, prepare for what is coming and participate meaningfully in the process as they wish. For victims, this is not symbolic; it is practical and essential. It would provide predictability where there has been stress and uncertainty. The bill recognizes that victims are not observers on the sidelines; they are people deeply affected by each step of the parole process, and they deserve to be treated with dignity.

What is also important is the overwhelming support the bill has earned. The previous version, Bill C-320, passed unanimously in the House. It passed unanimously at committee. Every party in the House supported it. Independent senators supported it. Victims' rights organizations across Canada also voiced their support because they recognized that transparency in the parole process is essential to restoring trust. The bill was as close to becoming law as possible before the government prorogued Parliament so that the Liberals could hold a leadership race. However, it made it all the way to third reading in the Senate. The consensus was clear across political lines, across both chambers and among those who work directly with victims every day. Today, with Bill C-221, we have the chance to complete that work. We have a chance to take a bill that has already earned national agreement and turn it into real protection for victims and their families.

The bill before us would not fix every problem with our parole system; much more needs to be done to ensure that victims' rights are upheld and that their participation is respected at every stage. However, it is a significant step. It is targeted and reasonable. It addresses a specific gap that has caused hardship and fear for too many Canadians. Above all, it would ensure that the experiences faced by Lisa and her family are not repeated.

Lisa never sought recognition or public attention. She simply refused to accept a system that repeatedly disregarded her. She supports other victims. She has written books; she holds workshops and vigils, and she continually pushes for transparency so that no one else will have to suffer what her family endured. Lisa's father showed courage that day when he protected someone in danger. Today, she carries that courage forward in her advocacy for victims, and the bill reflects her determination to create a better path for future victims. It will not change what she went through, but she hopes that others will be able to go through the parole process without the same harm and hurt that she did.

Bill C-221 is a testament to what can be achieved when victims speak and when lawmakers listen. It shows what is possible when a community refuses to let injustice stand unchallenged. The bill is ready to become law. Victims deserve information they can rely on, and they deserve a system that treats them with respect. The bill would deliver a simple and necessary change that will finally give victims transparency where there has only been disregard.

I urge Parliament to finish the work that began years ago, make this protection permanent and pass the bill through all stages quickly and unanimously.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start off by picking up on the point that was just made about the support for this private member's bill within the chamber, which I perceive as overwhelmingly positive. As members know, there is a limited number of private members' bills and motions that will ultimately hit the floor of the House of Commons.

There are two things that I would point out about the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. Number one, we need to recognize that an hon. member is very fortunate if they can get a bill passed through the House. A little bit relies on luck, because we have to be part of the draw. If we look at it, the number of the bill is Bill C-221, which tells us that the member has been fortunate to get the bill drawn.

Number two, when one is provided that opportunity, there is a multitude of issues one could bring to the floor of the House. The member has obviously prioritized this as a very important issue. We have seen governments of different political stripes talk about victims. We now have a private member who has brought forward legislation, and he shared a very intimate story. I always appreciate when members have the courage to share a personal story, because it is a very difficult thing to do. It made me reflect on an incident from a number of years ago.

I was at someone's home. Her son was missing, and she had the dreaded knock on the door from local law enforcement. She was told that her son's body had been found. There were the emotions that were tied into that, how she collapsed and how she had the courage to go through a process that is very complicated and exceptionally frustrating. One must imagine the emotions that someone has to live through to really appreciate why it is so important that, when we talk about legislation, we must incorporate the victims of crime.

That is how I see Bill C-221, which is a piece of legislation that ultimately has wide support, not only here in the chamber but, as has been pointed out by my friend across the way, in all sectors of society. I believe that it has that support because people can understand the rationale and the need to see it ultimately pass. I am anticipating that we will take a look at the need not only to be informed but also to have an explanation follow. For example, there could be an explanation for why a parole hearing has been scheduled so we have have a better appreciation of the system.

What I have found, and I used to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, is that there is a general lack of knowledge of the whole process of how our judicial system actually works. I have had the opportunity to raise it here on the floor of the House on several occasions. There is indeed federal, provincial and municipal processes, not to mention the many different stakeholders.

On the whole issue of drinking and driving, there is a phenomenal organization called MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There are so many stakeholders out there that are all trying to improve the system. A part of improving the system is through education. As complicated as it is, imagine being thrown into a position where something horrific has taken place in one's life, and one finds oneself having to go through a process that is exceptionally emotionally difficult to deal with, and one wants to find out what has happened to the perpetrator.

On the surface, the legislation comes across as very straightforward, as it is. In the question I posed, I hope it was implied that I am very supportive of this private member's bill. As has been pointed out, there was previous legislation that, for whatever reasons, did not get royal assent, along with other pieces of legislation. However, this does not take away from the efforts being presented to us today by a member highlighting the issue once again.

I reflect on Bill C-11, which is important legislation that also deals with victims' rights. It would transfer from the military courts to the civilian courts cases of sexual abuse and provide the support victims require, with the appointment of a victim's liaison officer to help facilitate the transfer.

This demonstrates very clearly that, whether it is a private member's bill or government-sponsored legislation, there is a certain expectation before us as legislators. That is ultimately to see legislation go to committee; if there is a need to make changes or amend it, then we should look at that.

I was encouraged to hear what the member from the Bloc put forward as a question, because I thought the same thing too. I wondered why information would not just be sent automatically. This seemed to make sense. What made more sense was the response. At the end of the day, I am sure there are individuals who do not necessarily want to know or to be reminded.

The true value of going to a standing committee, whether it is a private member's bill or a government bill, is that we are afforded the opportunity to have the dialogue necessary among the legislators. In a very short answer, I support the answer, and I do not necessarily support an amendment that would actually change it.

I look forward to the legislation going to committee. As has been implied, there might be some other potential amendments that could be brought forward. I would trust that any amendments would have, at least in principle, the support of the member and be within the scope of the legislation. What we ultimately hope to achieve, going through standing committees, is to have that dialogue. At the same time, and this is what I would like to highlight, we have to listen to what the stakeholders are saying. We need to listen to those interest groups and the victims themselves and at least afford the opportunity for them to be able to come to committee and possibly share their experiences, as the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies shared his personal story with the House.

I really believe that we need to do what we can as legislators to support the victims of crime. I applaud the member for bringing the bill forward.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate my colleague for introducing Bill C-221, especially in such an emotional situation. I have never experienced that, so it is hard for me to imagine, but I think victims have a right to know. The bill aims to share information about temporary absences more effectively. It is heartening to see all the parties working across party lines to support this bill for humanitarian reasons.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, or AQPV, felt that the bill was in line with its demands. In a brief, the AQPV said:

The AQPV believes it is essential to explain how decisions on eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole are made.

The AQPV wonders what form these explanations will take....

Earlier on, my colleague said, first of all, that victims need to want to receive this information. Next, this information must be communicated in a way that is clear and tailored to what victims want.

The association wrote in its brief:

...the AQPV believes that, when the sentence is handed down, the victim should already be informed of what a federal sentence consists of, as well as what the offender may be entitled to, including parole eligibility and the circumstances that may lead to it.

Correctional Service Canada documentation is “available online, including that concerning the possibility of parole”, but it is complex, even for a criminologist. The brief says that to “better support victims...it would be appropriate to provide them with a simple, clear and concise document, and to offer them a telephone meeting with a specialized resource”, if they want one, that is, “from an organization such as CSC's National Office for Victims (NOV)”, because this support “would help victims better understand the next steps and therefore make them feel safer”. This is essential.

The brief also talks about support services for victims when they receive information:

The AQPV would also like to raise the following questions:

How would the explanations of the way the dates were determined be provided to victims?

Would they be provided in writing only?

What measures would be taken to support victims when they receive this information?

In the AQPV's view, the information must

be communicated with sensitivity and humanity; and

come with the option of speaking with a person who is trained to support victims.

Even if the victim has expressed a wish to receive the information they are entitled to in writing, the victim should still be able to speak with a person who specializes in working with victims, such as someone from the NOV, who can answer any questions and explain how the dates were determined.

This is a very important bill, to say the least, and I hope everyone will support it so that it can pass as quickly as possible, so that it does not die on the Order Paper, like the previous version did.

I would like to thank my colleague once again for introducing this bill. We hope to proceed as quickly as possible.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies for sponsoring this legislation. I also wish to thank all members who have contributed or will contribute to our consideration of this bill.

As members know, this legislation has already been tabled by the members opposite in previous sessions. It is an important non-partisan bill that focuses on the rights of victims of crime and their families.

Our government firmly believes that victims across Canada deserve our compassion, respect and support. Under the current federal law, victims of crime are entitled to receive certain information about the person or persons who harmed them. This information includes eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender for temporary absences or parole. If adopted, Bill C-221 would amend the law so victims of crime would be entitled to know not only when offenders could be released, but also how officials determine these eligibility dates.

Victims of crime and their families want clarity when it comes to the justice system. They also want transparency and for their voices to be heard. Bill C-221 would give victims and their families the clarity and transparency they seek. It would help victims get information about key eligibility and review dates up front. At the same time, it in no way detracts from the rights of offenders. Their privacy and legal entitlements are in no way diminished or threatened.

The bill also aligns with the advancements we have made in this country to recognize and uphold the rights of victims of crime. Our understanding of those rights and our willingness to apply that knowledge is the work of many people and governments. Governments of all political stripes and members from both sides of the chamber have taken and supported action.

This advancement of victims' rights began in Canada in 1988. That year, the House first endorsed the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. This watershed development was soon followed by a federal law that gave victims of crime a voice at sentencing hearings. Since then, successive governments have affirmed the rights of victims based on our growing understanding of their needs. This progress is the result of Canada's evolving understanding of the rights of victims of crime and our willingness to apply that knowledge.

Bill C-221 continues these sensible, non-partisan, multi-generational advancements. The legislation makes clear that members of this House have collectively heard victims' voices and are acting on them.