Debates of Nov. 28th, 2025

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Some hon. members]

That's unparliamentary—

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

It is not unparliamentary. It is not necessarily nice, but it is not unparliamentary.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, will it satisfy the Chair for me to call the member for Winnipeg North “a little dictator”?

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

It goes both ways.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

I will, and so the—

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

The hon. member was not being recognized for a question or for a point of order, and I clarified.

The hon. member for York—Durham.

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

Madam Speaker, ad hominem attacks—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The hon. members will allow the hon. member for York—Durham to answer a question.

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

Madam Speaker, we should all strive to be honourable members in the House. I think that the actions of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, his ad hominem attacks, simply will reveal more about his character than about the strong character of our leader, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was really interesting. I just want him to say again quickly why this particular bill is not the right bill to actually get things done, seeing as how there has been so much more bureaucracy already added in the Liberal government.

Why would the bill not work?

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

Madam Speaker, we know it would not work, because we have the history to prove it. The government has been in power for 10 years, and not one modern treaty has been moved forward. However, the previous Conservative government moved forward five or six modern treaties, not to mention the settlements in my community that I described: the Coldwater-Narrows settlement and the Williams Treaties settlement, both under the Conservative government.

The bill would not work, because the Liberals will not take responsibility for their failure on the file.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about his previous comment, in which he said that our government was resorting to ad hominem arguments. This is when someone attacks the person and has no actual logical argument, which is something Conservatives do in the House every day. They talk about the Prime Minister's being disloyal to the country, and they berate immigrants as being the source of our economic troubles.

Can the member opposite mention whether he has ever resorted to an ad hominem argument in the House and whether he actually believes that the Prime Minister of Canada is not working on behalf of this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I of course question the ethics of the Prime Minister, because the facts lead me to do so. The Prime Minister is so conflicted, and there is evidence before us: an $80-billion nuclear deal to Brookfield; $500 million to the European Space Agency, which will benefit Brookfield; and undisclosed meetings with Brookfield executives, which is a direct violation of what the Ethics Commissioner told him to do.

If I have those facts, should I not come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is unethical?

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

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

moved that Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to speak today to my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility, also known as the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. This bill was originally championed by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, dating back to the 41st Parliament. Most recently, in 2021, the bill made it to committee, and was about to be referred back to the House with all-party support. However, Parliament was prorogued, and that ended the progress.

I want to thank my colleague from Manitoba for all his hard work on this bill, his compassion for victims and families, and for allowing me to bring this forward once again.

I also want to thank my many colleagues who have shown their support by co-seconding my bill, as well as the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River for being here today to both second and speak to my bill. It is my great honour to pick up the work that was done by colleagues before me, and I am committed to bringing this bill through the process fully so families can have the justice they deserve.

Tori, Holly, Tammy, Leslie, Kristen, Christine, Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun, Terri, Louise, Sereena, Mona, Andrea, Brenda, Georgina, Marnie and Kimberly are all victims my bill could have provided justice for. This is not an exhaustive list, and people will not recognize most of these names.

Instead, they will recognize the names of their murderers, such as Bernardo, Homolka, Olson, Pickton, Rafferty, McClintic, Briere, Wellwood and Moffat. These are all criminals who have committed the most heinous of crimes, and these are the names that get reported in the news every time they apply for parole, the names that continue to haunt the families of the victims for the rest of their lives.

This is what is at the heart of Bill C-235. It is about protecting the families of victims from having to relive the agony of the horrific crimes inflicted against their loved ones during parole hearings year after year.

This legislation would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to empower the courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years when sentencing criminals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered the same victim in the same incident. These victims are often our most innocent and vulnerable Canadians.

Increasing parole ineligibility from a maximum of 25 to 40 years would spare families from having to go through the process of attending unnecessary parole hearings and making victim impact statements, which are traumatic, to say the least, and heart-wrenching for these families. Worse yet, these sadistic murderers often apply for parole every two years once they are eligible for the sole purpose of toying with families, revictimizing them and making them relive the gruesome killings that were committed. There are studies that suggest these heinous killers get off on recounting their crimes in gruesome detail in front of their victims' families at these hearings.

It is worth noting that my bill is not about creating longer sentences for these sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts will likely never qualify for parole. Parole boards have been very consistent in not allowing these types of heinous criminals out on parole.

I know there are some concerns about whether or not this violates section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding cruel and unusual punishment, but I would like to emphasize that increased parole ineligibility is strictly under judicial discretion. The parole ineligibility period could now be set up to 40 years, but it would remain at the discretion of a judge and as advised by a jury.

This bill was modelled after Bill C-48, now the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which also afforded judges the ability to extend the parole ineligibility period for multiple murder convictions. Rather than being concurrent, they are now served consecutively. Bill C-48 has stood up to a charter challenge. As such, my bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights.

The maximum of 40 years was determined by looking at the maximum ineligibility periods for each of these three offences and adding them together to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently. For murder, it is 25 years without parole. For abduction, it is 10 years. For sexual assault, it is 4.6 years. That is a total of 39.6 years, hence 40 years.

I want to be clear: Bill C-235 is not about mandatory minimum sentencing. I will state again that this bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights. It is based on the discretion of a presiding judge, through recommendations from a jury, allowing a judge to set parole ineligibility of up to 40 years.

I cannot stress enough that this bill targets the most depraved in our society. It targets those who will likely never see parole, so it will not impact criminals who will likely never be released from prison. This is about sparing families from appearing at unnecessary parole hearings. I will repeat that: My bill is about the families who are dedicated to giving a voice to and representing their lost loved ones, who cannot represent themselves.

I want to speak to a case in my riding from 15 years ago. Kimberly Proctor, who was 18 years old, was abducted, tortured, raped and murdered by two of her classmates. I know her family, whom I have met, is listening closely today. Her killers pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for only 10 years. Although they were minors, they were charged as adults. The Proctor family has already had to face multiple parole hearings and will continue to do so at least every two years, if not more, for as long as Kimberly's murderers live.

Kimberly's murderers were not convicted of separate charges for abduction and sexual assault, and this is not an isolated incident. Many prosecutors will stay additional charges and only prosecute the highest charge, normally first-degree murder, because it results in the heaviest penalty possible. My bill would encourage prosecutors to prosecute to the fullest extent, thus including all charges. This would allow for a longer period of parole ineligibility should there be a conviction on all three charges of murder, abduction and sexual assault in the same incident. This would not only help serve justice to the families upon conviction; it would also protect them from unnecessary parole hearings and having to relive the trauma every two years.

Again, I want to reiterate that these depraved murderers, these brutal, sadistic members of society, will likely never be released back into society. The Parole Board of Canada will continue to hold them in institutions, knowing they are dangerous offenders who will likely reoffend. Let us ensure that we are not revictimizing families by having them go to all of these unnecessary Parole Board hearings and relive the murder and the brutal details of how their loved ones were killed.

I hope members from all sides of the House who rise to ask questions on this bill will commit to supporting the bill, noting that it has previously received support from across all party lines, including at committee. I look forward to continued support from across the House as we seek to prevent the revictimization of the families of murdered and brutalized persons.

Let us remember the long list of victims I mentioned earlier in my speech: Tori, Holly, Tammy, Leslie, Kristen, Christine, Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun, Terri, Louise, Serena, Mona, Andrea, Brenda, Georgina, Marina and Kimberly. Let us remember and respect their families.

I would like to conclude with these thoughts: My bill speaks to the most heinous of cases in which a criminal abducts, sexually assaults and murders the same victim in one incident, and as a result, judges would have discretion to set parole ineligibility at up to 40 years.

I would like to state that the bill is fair, as it does not change the outcome; the offenders are unlikely ever to be released. It is just, as the courts and judges retain their discretionary powers based on the circumstances of each case. Most importantly, the bill is compassionate. It is about sparing the victim's families and loved ones from unnecessary parole hearings year after year.

For the Proctor family, and the families of all the victims I mentioned today, I will continue to fight to protect families in my riding on Vancouver Island, and indeed across Canada, from unnecessary parole hearings and the continued trauma that is caused as a result. I hope the bill will bring them some solace.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to what the member said. Looking at the victims is probably the biggest motivation for all of us to give very serious thought to the legislation. I would think every member in the House is sympathetic to the victims and what victims have to go through. I thought he described the situation quite well.

Does the member believe there is a possibility of amendments that might provide more strength to the legislation or even make sure it is charter-compliant? If he wants to provide some thoughts on that, it would be appreciated.

I do value the manner in which we have a focus on victims.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question. I am disappointed he feels I only described it “quite well”; I thought I did very well.

I appreciate his comment about looking at victims. I did focus on looking at the victims. I would also have liked to focus on looking at the heinous offenders, but, to be frank, some of the details just cannot be repeated in the House.

As for amendments, I will note that this did go to committee before and received cross-party support. I hope that it goes to committee and no amendments are required, although I am open to them if there are improvements.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I fully understand the emotional weight he carries. I have some questions for him, and later on I will explain why I think his bill will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

I want to hear him on what he said, because he is aware that there are constitutional issues at play. There is a charter article against cruel and unusual punishment, and there have already been Supreme Court rulings on this.

My colleague told us that Bill C-48 had been passed and that this meant that his bill would also pass. Bill C-48 dealt with bail, that is, the provisional release of someone who has not yet been found guilty, whereas Bill C-235 deals with parole for murderers.

First, I would like him to explain how he manages to establish a causal link. Second, if this bill is passed and then struck down, is my colleague and his party prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to keep it in force, if he is serious about his initiative?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I would like to speak to the emotion and the impossible situation that these victims face. The member brings forward a more technical question about cruel and unusual punishment. As I said, Bill C-48, which the current bill is modelled after, dealt with cruel and unusual punishment, which would apply similarly for the bill. I see no change of outcome. We would stand by the bill, with a focus on protecting families.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill narrowly targets some of the most sadistic murderers; they are murderers who rape, brutalize and abduct their victims. The Library of Parliament looked into how many murderers who fall into this category received parole. The answer is that it could not find a single instance in which the Parole Board granted full parole, and there were very rare circumstances in which temporary absences and day parole were granted.

Does that not underscore the reasonableness of the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for reiterating that, as per Bill C-48, the bill would withstand a constitutional challenge under the charter.

As my colleague pointed out, the criminals in question are the most heinous of criminals, and none of them have been found to have been released. Therefore we know that the parole boards will keep the heinous offenders in jail, and the bill would not affect the outcome of the punishments for people who frankly deserve to never be released.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to repeat my question for my colleague. If he is truly serious about his initiative, then he must promise the victims today that if this bill passes and is later struck down, and if the Conservative Party ever forms a government, it will use the notwithstanding clause to uphold the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I will fight to ensure that the bill makes it through and becomes legislation, and that these most heinous crimes are punished accordingly. I will always stand to support victims.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-235, introduced by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

This bill addresses an issue that strikes at the very heart of our justice system—the way that our country punishes the most severe, devastating crimes resulting not only in death or serious injury, but also in lasting trauma for family members, survivors and society at large.

The bill before us proposes to allow the courts to impose a parole ineligibility period lasting up to 40 years when the same victim, during the same sequence of events, is murdered, kidnapped or forcibly confined, when a sexual offence is also involved. These crimes of extreme violence destroy lives, families and communities. Society justifiably feels a deep need for justice and protection in response to them.

Before taking our legal analysis any further, I want to acknowledge the immense pain of the victims and family members who have lived through such tragedies. I think that my colleague across the way did a good job, and I thank him for the eloquent way that he rekindled a debate on this subject.

When a family has to relive their trauma at every parole hearing, it is not only difficult, it is inhumane. This is not a theoretical debate. It is about shattered lives, parents and children living with impossible grief, survivors trying to rebuild their lives after an unthinkable incident.

This bill aims to address that suffering. It is intended to offer a form of stability and some degree of healing by reducing the frequency of hearings that reopen the wounds that might still be raw. This intention is profoundly just and deserves to be heard. It deserves serious discussion. We must respond with empathy, but also with rigour.

However, in a country governed by the rule of law, we must balance two imperatives. The first is the moral imperative to protect victims. The second is the legal imperative to respect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am saying that emotion is important, but emotion alone cannot be the basis for a criminal sentence. Passing a law based solely on emotion without a solid legal framework runs the very real risk of that law eventually being struck down, unfortunately. If we pass a law that is later struck down, we would be disappointing victims a second time, as I just said.

It is not through weak laws that we protect families. We do so through robust, enforceable and constitutional laws. The current system is strict but well defined. Canada already has a system that allows for adjustments in terms of ineligibility for parole for murders. The system automatically calls for 25 years of imprisonment for first-degree murder and between 10 and 25 years of imprisonment for second-degree murder. Section 743.6 of the Criminal Code also includes mechanisms for delaying access to parole in certain serious cases.

This system is based on a fundamental principle that has been recognized by the Supreme Court for decades: individualization in sentencing. Sentences must take into account not only the act committed, but also the degree of responsibility of the convicted person, their history and, yes, their rehabilitation potential. This is not an ideological position. It is a constitutional principle.

The Bissonnette decision serves as an essential reminder. Bill C-235 cannot be studied without considering the Bissonnette decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court struck down consecutive ineligibility periods lasting 50, 75 or 100 years. Why were they struck down? They were struck down because a sentence that allows no real prospect of release, even in theory, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of section 12 of the charter. The court did not say that the crimes were not atrocious or that the sentences should not be long. It said that the state can never completely rule out the possibility of reintegration into society, even for offenders guilty of the most heinous crimes. The decision is not political; it is a constitutional requirement.

A 40-year ineligibility period could be considered extreme in some cases, particularly if it were imposed on very young individuals or in specific circumstances. The legal risk is therefore not theoretical, but rather real, serious and predictable. Our responsibility here in the House is to strengthen the bill so that it cannot be successfully challenged. We are not rejecting Bill C-235, on the contrary. We recognize the legitimate intention behind the member's bill. However, for it to become a lasting, effective piece of legislation, respectful of fundamental principles, it needs to be improved. We are therefore proposing three amendments.

The first amendment, which is essential, is about a clear and consistent right of appeal. When imposing an exceptionally severe sentence, there must be a national review mechanism to harmonize the case law. The second amendment is about a requirement to provide grounds for any inadmissibility exceeding 25 years. An exceptional sentence must be accompanied by equally exceptional grounds. This will reinforce the legitimacy of the decision in the eyes of the public and will protect the law from challenges. The third amendment specifies the law can only be applied prospectively. This is essential to avoid the risk of violating section 11 of the charter, which prohibits increasing a sentence retroactively. These amendments in no way diminish the scope of my colleague's bill. On the contrary, they make it stronger, more consistent, more sustainable and more useful for families and survivors.

We want a strong, compassionate and constitutional justice system. Our goal is not just to impose harsh penalties, but to impose harsh penalties that will stand the test of time and hold up in courts in the future. Victims have already endured the unspeakable. They do not deserve to have a court decision imposed on them a few years later if it will have the effect of striking down the law they had pinned their hopes on. We must therefore offer them real, not symbolic, protection; justice that is firm but legally sound; a law that respects the Constitution but does not falter in the face of challenges.

In conclusion, Bill C‑235 is very important. It is guided by a just and compassionate intention to better protect victims of the most serious crimes. However, in order to become a truly effective law, it must be modified by means of the three amendments I have presented. It must reflect our legitimate outrage, but also our deep respect for the rule of law. It is in this spirit that we are participating in this debate, and it is in this spirit that we invite all members of Parliament to improve this text so that it becomes a fair, sustainable, balanced and strong law, but above all, a compassionate one.