Debates of Nov. 28th, 2025

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to briefly quote the Supreme Court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member is out of time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is of course an honour to speak to this very important bill from my colleague.

I want to focus members' attention back on why the bill is important and why the changes should be made. I will reiterate one of the horrific instances of something the bill would seek to address, and that, of course, is the murder of Tori Stafford, from my neck of the woods. I will remind members what happened in the case by reading from a local article at the time, which said:

Terri [Terri-Lynne McClintic, one of the murderers] went to a local hardware store and bought a claw hammer and some garbage bags, after which they drove to a remote location near Mount Forest, Ontario. Over there, Terri stated that she got out of the car while Michael sexually assaulted Tori. He then placed a garbage bag over her head and hit her with the hammer. They placed the body in more bags, hit it under a pile of rocks, and then drove away.

These are the types of horrific crimes that the bill seeks to bring justice for. Right now we do not have justice.

One of the key principles of our criminal justice system is proportionality, which means that the punishment should fit the crime. Right now we do not have the appropriate balance for these specific instances: abduction, rape, brutalization and murder. That is why my colleague's bill is important: It would return that balance.

There were concerns raised about discretion. If members read the bill, and I know that all members will before voting on it, they will see that it would maintain that discretion. It would allow a jury to make a recommendation, which would not be binding on the judge, and it would allow the judge the discretion to choose the period of parole ineligibility. It would not require it, but it would maintain that discretion. It is something that I, as a lawyer, support because context matters in these cases.

In these cases, we need more availability of a longer ineligibility period for parole, to ensure that brutal murderers like Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic do not have access to parole. As my hon. colleague mentioned, part of the problem is that once eligibility is reached, a person can seek it again and again, therefore revictimizing those who went through those terrible experiences and giving the opportunity for the murderers, rapists and abusers to get out again. Frankly, they should never see the light of day. That is why the bill, which would increase the ineligibility period from 25 years to between 25 and 40 years, is important.

Let me remind members that Parliament makes laws. Parliament upholds justice for Canadians. The courts will do what they want, but we should pass the bill.

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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)