(Preamble agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Procedure and House Affairs Members present reports from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning committee membership and election candidate criteria, while debating proposed measures regarding "longest ballot" organizations and nomination signature limits. 700 words.
Opposition Motion—Tariff-free Auto Pact Conservative MP Kyle Seeback moves a motion criticizing the Liberal government’s handling of the auto industry, citing declining production levels and job losses. Conservatives propose a 'tariff-free auto pact' to double production via GST exemptions and a one-for-one sales rule. Liberals oppose the motion, arguing the plan is outdated and ignores current global trade realities. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois rejects it, highlighting concerns regarding climate goals and regional interests. 47900 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Supplementary Estimates (C), 2025-26 First reading of Bill C-23. The bill appropriates specified sums for federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, advancing through the House of Commons for final approval on division. .
Interim Supply Members move and carry a motion on division to grant interim supply totalling $86.4 billion to fund government operations until March 31, 2027, as part of the budgetary process for the upcoming fiscal year. 600 words.
Interim Supply First reading of Bill C-24. The bill receives first, second, and third reading in the House of Commons, is reviewed clause-by-clause as a committee of the whole, and is ultimately passed on division for federal public administration funding. .
Amendments to Bill C-8 Laila Goodridge argues against the government’s challenge to amendments made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety regarding Bill C-8, asserting that the committee’s changes are procedurally sound and within the bill's scope. 1300 words, 10 minutes.
Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act Second reading of Bill C-235. The bill increases, at a judge's discretion, parole ineligibility periods to 40 years for offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder. Supporters, primarily Conservatives, argue it prevents the retraumatization of victims' families. The Bloc Québécois opposes the measure, citing constitutional concerns regarding Supreme Court rulings on cumulative sentencing and potential wasted parliamentary resources, but the motion passes and proceeds to committee. 4200 words, 30 minutes.
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
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.
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to Bill C-8, concerning cybersecurity and telecommunications. In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary referred to three amendments that the committee had agreed to consider despite the committee chair ruling the amendments inadmissible, which it subsequently adopted.
Firstly, I would like to remind the House that appeals of committee chairs' rulings are simply part of the routine practice of this place. Standing Order 117 says so. It says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee—
Amendments to Bill C-8Points of OrderGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. I will just ask the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to pause for a minute.
I would just invite hon. members who are still in the chamber and who may not be as interested in this point of order to perhaps exit the chamber more quickly so we can continue with the proceedings of this place. Out of respect for our colleagues who are trying to make interventions, I will just ask those who are having side conversations to now exit, and we can carry on with deliberations.
I will invite the hon. member to continue her intervention.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is a very important point of order, and I would recommend that everyone stop to listen.
Standing Order 117 says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee”.
Secondly, a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible. Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3,327 of the Debates, you yourself reached a different conclusion than the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had concerning the need for royal recommendation for an amendment that the committee made to Bill C-4. The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.
The parliamentary secretary referred the Chair to paragraph 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which provides that an amendment to a bill is out of order “if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The parliamentary secretary, however, did not offer any argument or reasoning for the amendments being allegedly beyond the scope of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you should reject the government's argument on that basis alone, since it is asking you to overturn a committee decision without any true procedural justification. As Janse and LeBlanc wrote at paragraph 16.96, “The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.”
Indeed, as Speaker Milliken mentioned on March 14, 2008, at page 4182 of the Debates, “successive Speakers have been reluctant to intervene in the proceedings of committees except in highly exceptional circumstances.” That is, in fact, a commonly understood principle in this House, but the parliamentary secretary failed to offer any justification meeting that threshold of exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the same former Speaker explained on November 27, 2002, at page 1950 of the Debates, “it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.”
However, should you disagree with me on the ending of your inquiry here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer submissions about how these Conservative amendments are actually within the scope of this bill. Let us get our bearings. First, footnote 164 on page 63 of Janse and LeBlanc refers to the scope of a bill as “meaning the schemes by which the principles of the bill are achieved.”
Paragraph 28.81 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition, expands upon the concept. It states:
The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases, difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope.
The same authority continues, explaining the United Kingdom's practice:
Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, that is to say, within the scope of the bill.
Bill C-8 is a broad bill, touching on a number of facets of the digital world. For our purposes, let us focus on part 1, containing amendments to the Telecommunications Act and making provisions for a variety of measures, including empowering the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry, respectively, to make orders and give direction regarding the security of Canada's telecommunications system. What amendments CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 do collectively is require prior judicial authorization for certain of those orders, including for decisions of the cabinet or the minister to impose a gag order on Canadians.
I would submit that nothing about this changes or expands the scope of Bill C-8. Instead, they oppose conditions on executive decision-making, without changing the nature or scope of the decisions that might be made under the authorities proposed in the bill. In a ruling given on October 26, 2006, Mr. Speaker Milliken held at page 4308 of the Debates, that:
I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact.
Another precedent concerns a former bill, Bill C-483, which proposed to transfer decision-making authority over the temporary escorted absences of convicted murderers from penitentiary wardens, who are officials of the executive branch, to the quasi-judicial national Parole Board. The public safety committee reported that bill back to the House with amendments that would instead have had the decision-making responsibilities shared between institution heads and the Parole Board.
Mr. Speaker, your predecessor found the committee's amendments to have been in order, commenting on May 2, 2014, at page 4880 of the Debates, that:
I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences.
In the present case before you, Mr. Speaker, the government itself contemplates a rule for the federal court elsewhere in clause 2 of Bill C-8, namely, in its proposed section 15.9 of the Telecommunications Act, making provisions for the judicial review of the cabinet and ministers' orders. The amendments to Bill C-8, challenged by the parliamentary secretary, are like the 2006 precedent. This is the simple creation of a condition on how the decisions of a minister are exercised without changing the types of decisions that could be made and, like the 2014 precedent, simply adjusting to the responsibilities of the decision-makers who each already have assigned roles within the proposed statutory scheme.
To sum up, the parliamentary secretary's point of order should simply be dismissed for its failure to advance any procedural grounds for why the public safety committee's third report might be procedurally flawed. In the alternative, the impugned amendments are all, I submit, within the scope of the bill and have a nature consistent with committee amendments, which your predecessors have found to be within the scope of the bills concerned.
Amendments to Bill C-8Points of OrderGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I thank the hon. member for her intervention. The Chair will take it under advisement.
The House resumed from November 28, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Bill C-235 Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 comes as a bit of a surprise. The Supreme Court of Canada told us just a few years ago that keeping people in prison for 40 years is unconstitutional. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was told that and today we are back here with a bill that deals with pretty much the same issue. I do not know what to say about it. I am afraid we are wasting our time.
In any case, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We do not believe that everyone will be rehabilitated, nor do we believe that it happens automatically, but we do believe that we must invest in rehabilitation. We believe that when someone commits a crime, no matter how serious, we must at least attempt to rehabilitate them before returning them to society. Keeping them in prison for 40 years and then releasing them will not better serve the interests of justice or public safety. We must invest in building rehabilitation systems rather than prison walls.
The Bloc Québécois also believes in an effective court system that is not bogged down by slow administration of justice, resulting in decisions and rulings that will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a small claims court. This was attempted in the Bissonnette case, as members may recall, and the Supreme Court ruled that cumulative prison sentences of more than 40 years are unacceptable and unconstitutional. It should be noted that, when someone is sentenced to life in prison, they are sentenced. When that person is released on parole, there will be conditions, of course, and they will not be completely free. If they do not comply with the conditions, that person will go back to jail. What the Supreme Court has said is that parole applications can be considered after 25 years. I do not know where our Conservative colleagues are going with this Harper-era throwback, but I feel that it is a bit of a waste of time.
We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in an effective court system and we also believe in the authority of the Supreme Court. We cannot keep asking the Supreme Court to review the same cases over and over again. It makes no sense, and it shows a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's authority. I think we need to take note of these decisions and act accordingly. I invite our Conservative colleagues to reread these decisions carefully and help us move forward more effectively.
We also believe in making efficient use of House of Commons infrastructure. We have a lot of legislation to pass. I have been a member of the justice committee for a few years now, if not more, and we never manage to get through all the matters that we need to review. We are currently working on Bill C-16, but there are other bills scheduled to come forward and we need to conduct a study on the judicial appointment process. We are going to be swamped, and we will certainly not have looked at everything by the end of this Parliament. What are we going to do about Bill C‑235? We will devote who knows how many meetings, maybe two, three, five or even ten, to studying how we might best get this bill passed, even though we already know that the Supreme Court told us not long ago that such a measure would be unconstitutional. Once again, this is yet another misuse of House of Commons resources and of our judicial system. It is disrespectful to the authority of the Supreme Court, and it runs counter to the interests of society, which would greatly benefit from the effective rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crimes.
That was brief, but it sums up my thoughts. My colleagues have likely realized that we will be voting against Bill C-235. I know that my Conservative colleagues are working hard. I see the work they do on the justice committee. I do not always agree with them, but sometimes I do. Unfortunately, it seems I have been disagreeing with them more often lately. However, I cannot deny that they work hard. I urge them to channel that energy into moving important issues forward. There is so much in the Criminal Code that should be reviewed.
For goodness’ sake, we need to acknowledge the situation, accept the Supreme Court’s rulings and move forward. Let us focus on what needs to be addressed and what can be changed, rather than spinning our wheels.
Bill C-235 Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this particular bill, Bill C-235, introduced by my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. This is a bill rooted in something very simple yet too often overlooked in our justice system, which is respect for victims and their families.
For far too many Canadians, justice does not end at sentencing. For the families of victims who have endured the unimaginable in the form of the abduction, sex assault and murder of a loved one, the trauma does not fade with time. In many cases, it is forced back into their lives again and again, through a system that compels them to relive their worst nightmare every day. Under current law, offenders convicted of first-degree murder are eligible for parole after 25 years.
What does that actually mean in practice? It means that after 25 years, families are drawn back into the system, often every two years thereafter, to attend parole hearings, hearings where they feel obligated to be present, hearings where they must prepare statements, hearings where they must again confront the individual responsible for the destruction of their family.
We know that in these most heinous cases, parole is almost never granted. We are not talking about individuals who are realistically going to be released. We are talking about individuals the likes of Paul Bernardo, like Clifford Olson, individuals who have used these hearings not as a step toward rehabilitation but as an opportunity to reassert control, to retraumatize families and to force them to relive unspeakable acts. That is the reality. That is why Bill C-235 matters.
The legislation proposes a targeted, reasonable and proportionate reform. It would allow judges, after hearing from a jury, to extend parole eligibility from 25 years up to 40 years, not in every case, not broadly, but only in the most egregious of circumstances, where three elements are present: the abduction, sex assault and murder of the same victim as part of the same event or series of events.
These are not ordinary crimes. These are the most depraved, calculated and devastating offences imaginable, and Canadians understand that. Families understand that. They understand that when someone commits all three of these acts against a single victim, the harm is not just irreparable. It is enduring. It is generational and often permanent, so when we talk about increasing parole ineligibility, we are not talking about punishment for the sake of punishment. We are talking about accountability.
Equally important, we are talking about peace, peace for families who should not have to structure their lives around parole hearings every two years, peace for parents who should not have to relive the loss of their child every two years, and peace for loved ones who should not be forced to hear again and again the details of crimes that shattered their world.
Bill C-235 strikes the right balance. It would not impose a mandatory extension. It would not remove judicial discretion. Instead, it would actually empower judges, after considering the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and, importantly, the recommendation from the jury, to determine whether a longer period of parole ineligibility is appropriate. That is a careful, measured approach. It respects the role of the courts and, most importantly, it respects the charter. It respects the voices of Canadians, through the jury system, who may wish to weigh in on what justice looks like in these most serious cases.
This is not about being extreme. This is about being fair: fair to victims, fair to families and fair to a public that expects our justice system to reflect the severity of the crimes being committed. We have heard from victims' families across the country. We have heard their frustrations, their exhaustion and their pain. They speak about a system that forces them into a never-ending cycle, one where they are just about to begin to rebuild their lives when they are pulled back into a process to reopen wounds that never truly heal. They speak about the emotional toll, the financial burden, the anxiety, the fear and the lack of closure.
Bill C-235 responds directly to all those concerns. It acknowledges that justice is not only about the offender. It is also about the lasting impact on those left behind. It takes a meaningful step to reduce that burden. We also know that this bill is limited in scope. Fewer than 10 cases per year would meet this threshold. These individuals are already serving life sentences, and in most cases they will never be released. The financial impact on Correctional Service Canada would be minimal, but the impact on families and on victims would be significant.
This is a small change in law, but a profound change in lived experience. It is consistent with the principle that Conservatives have always stood for: holding offenders accountable, while showing compassion and respect for victims. We believe that when crimes reach this level of brutality, the justice system must respond accordingly. We believe that protecting victims from further harm is not optional; it is actually essential. We believe that anything we can do to hold offenders more accountable for these heinous crimes is a step in the right direction.
There have been cases across the country that have shaken communities, cases that have devastated families and remind us, time after time, why this legislation is so important, and cases where the brutality of the crime defies comprehension and where families are left not only grieving but navigating a system that seems to prioritize process over humanity. While each case is unique, the pattern is the same: unimaginable loss followed by years, sometimes decades, of forced engagement with the criminal responsible.
Bill C-235 offers a different path, a path that still respects due process and judicial discretion and a path that better reflects the reality faced by victims' families. I also want to note that this is not a new idea. Previous versions of the bill have received strong support in the past. In fact, in a previous Parliament, members of the Liberal Party supported the legislation. This should never be a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right. This is about listening to victims, and this is about making a targeted, thoughtful improvement to our justice system.
At its core, Bill C-235 asks a simple question: When someone commits the most horrific combination of crimes, abduction, sexual assault and murder, should families be forced to relive that trauma every two years after 25 years have been served, or can we, as legislators, take a measured step to provide them with some degree of peace?
I believe that answer is abundantly clear, and I believe Canadians expect us to act. Let us stand with victims. Let us stand with families, and let us pass Bill C-235.
Bill C-235 Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for bringing forward Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would amend the Criminal Code.
The bill is about putting victims' rights first. It would do that through amendments to the Criminal Code, which, as was already articulated very well by our shadow minister for justice, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, would increase the parole ineligibility that a jury can recommend to a judge for people convicted of committing the most heinous of crimes, to anywhere from 25 years up to 40 years. The discretionary powers would be given to the judge, who could also take into consideration the offender's character, the nature of the crime and the jury's recommendation to impose the same 25 to 40 years of parole ineligibility at the time of sentencing.
It is important we talk about the fact that this bill is not about increasing stiffer penalties for these sadistic murderers. We are talking about the most depraved of society. We are talking about those who kidnap, rape and kill the most vulnerable, such as children, women and often the elderly. Those who commit some of the most heinous acts are those we are targeting through this bill.
The bill is about saving the families of the victims from having to go through the agony of attending these unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings. We have to remember that somebody who is serving a life sentence of up to 25 years can start applying for parole at year 23. Often, these individuals, who have been incarcerated for committing the most despicable acts of abduction, sexual assault and murder, use this as a way to feed their own depravity by having the families come in, seeing them face to face and having them live through the trauma of what happened. The bill would give the jury and judges the power to make the decision, as defined by the charter and as respected under our common law, to determine whether to give 25 to 40 years of parole ineligibility.
I originally drafted this bill back in 2013, when it was tabled as Bill C-478 in the 41st Parliament. Later that year, in 2013, I was promoted to parliamentary secretary, so I was not allowed to carry forward the bill. It was dropped and was then picked up by one of our former colleagues, Colin Mayes, a former British Columbia member of Parliament, as Bill C-587. It passed second reading and was supported by the Liberals, the NDP and some independents, along with the Conservatives, on September 24, 2014.
In 2016, I reintroduced the bill as Bill C-266 after the election, and it passed second reading on May 16, 2019. Again, the Conservatives and the Liberals supported it. That bill made it through committee and came out in 2019, but of course in 2019 we had another election, so it was lost.
In 2021, it was retabled as Bill C-267 by the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry and was also presented simultaneously at that time in the Senate by then senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, as Bill S-224.
In the 44th Parliament, in 2022, I retabled this bill as Bill C-296, but it was way down on the Order Paper and of course never made it through. In this Parliament, here in the first draw, I am glad to see that my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has picked up this bill and is running forward with it, with some very personal experiences on this as well from people in his riding who have been impacted.
I want to talk about the nexus of why I did this. Back in 2009 and 2010, we were hearing about the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Tori Stafford. In 2010, Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and prosecuted. Then Michael Rafferty, her partner in crime for this horrendous and disgusting act, was sentenced in 2012.
During this time, while I think all of our hearts were breaking listening to this story as it played out on the airwaves, Clifford Olson was dying from cancer in prison. I heard Sharon Rosenfeldt talk on the radio about how the murderer, who killed a number of children, impacted them. When he was getting ready for parole board hearings, he would send letters to the families of the victims and describe in detail how he tortured, raped and killed their children.
It is because of that sadistic behaviour, the tormenting of families and the use of parole board hearings to feed his own sick appetite, that it became clear that we had to do something to protect the families. I knew full well that both Michael Rafferty and Terry-Lynne McClintic were going to be eligible for parole sometime around 2033 because they killed Tori Stafford.
I believe that all Canadians would consider it unacceptable that families have to go through this ongoing saga of parole board hearings every couple of years and that these monsters who stole their loved ones and killed them sadistically continue to have the opportunity to retraumatize the families.
There have been a number of legal arguments about increasing parole ineligibility, consecutive sentencing and the like. I can say that this bill was fashioned after Bill C-48 in the 40th Parliament, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act, as well as Bill S-6 from the 40th Parliament, which also provided parole ineligibility at the discretion of the courts, and that is charter compliant.
I want to read into the record some of the quotes that we have heard over the years.
Susan Ashley, whose sister Linda Bright was murdered in 1978 by Donald Armstrong, said, about the parole board hearings in the past, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my Mom and Dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”.
She did an interview in the London Free Press back in 2012. Susan stated, referring to Donald Armstrong, “He cannot be fixed. And to put him in the community, it's a public risk to any woman that he can have access to. My family and myself, we really don't want to see another family victimized like we were. It's a terrible thing to have to endure, it's a lifetime of pain and suffering.”
Linda's mother, Margaret, said during her victim impact statement, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I've had to do in the last 20 years”.
Gary Rosenfeldt, Sharon Rosenfeldt's husband, who was a stepfather to Daryn Johnsrude, said publicly, after going through a number of parole hearings against Clifford Olsen in 1997, 2006 and 2010, when there was still the faint hope clause: “What's really horrendous about this...is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives. And this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”
Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson back in 1982. Darlene's sister, Terri, said this about having to go through these unnecessary, repetitive and painful parole board hearings: “Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.” In the Toronto Star, in talking about her mother reading her victim impact statement, she said, “I listened to her read it and it was like she was burying Dolly all over again. It was so upsetting for Mom. She cried. Families shouldn't have to go through this all over again.”
Yvonne Harvey of the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children said, “Although I have not personally faced the ordeal of a parole hearing, I have spoken to many individuals who have. I am certain that the primary intent of this bill, to spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings, would be most welcomed.”
I ask that all members of the House allow this bill to get to committee so that we can stop the revictimization of families by these monsters who are convicted and will never qualify for parole.
Bill C-235 Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I will invite the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to give his right of reply.
Bill C-235 Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to stand here and represent the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island, and I continue to listen to and bring their voices forward here to Ottawa as their member of Parliament.
One of the biggest issues I hear about is the impact of crime on our community from people who are just trying to focus on the high cost of living and on raising their families in a safe community. People regularly talk to me about justice for victims as well as compassion and support for those impacted by crime. One way I am able to address this is through my private member's bill, Bill C-235, an act respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons.
This is an act that would focus on justice for victims and compassion for families of victims of the most heinous of crimes, where a victim is abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in the same incident, very similar to that of Kimberly Proctor from Langford on Vancouver Island, a community I represent. Kimberly was horrifyingly abducted, raped and murdered in 2010. I give my deepest respect to her family, whom I know are watching today.
I would like to also express my sincere appreciation to all of my colleagues who have sponsored and spoken to my private member's bill, including the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations and my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for initiating this private member's bill over 10 years ago.
The most important factor that I would like to focus on today and that I would like all members of the House to consider is that this bill is about both justice for victims and compassion for their families and loved ones. By giving judges the option of parole ineligibility of up to 40 years, this bill would be, as we have heard, charter-compliant and would spare the families and loved ones of victims from the retraumatization of unnecessary parole hearings, potentially, every two years.
I have personally sat with families as they recount the horrific process that comes with victim impact statements and the lengthy parole hearing process. The notifications that lead up to the hearings themselves are devastating. Disturbingly, it is well documented that criminals get off on recounting the heinous detail of their crimes solely for the purpose of revictimizing families.
Parole hearings are sometimes as little as 15 years after sentencing, based on time served and early parole factors. Presently in these cases, only the murder portion goes to sentencing, knowing that the other crimes will not affect the current maximum parole ineligibility of 25 years, leaving the victim, family and loved ones without justice for the abduction and sexual assault portions of these horrendous crimes.
Another important part worth noting is that criminals in these most heinous crimes will likely never receive parole. I was unable to find any such cases. These are criminals whom we know have no chance of ever being rehabilitated, but that does not stop the families, of course, from feeling obligated to submit victim impact statements and attend parole hearings, as it is the only way they can give a voice to those who can no longer speak, their family members, the victims silenced forever who can no longer speak for themselves.
Through debate, we have heard some minor suggestions for improvements discussed, including a more robust appeal mechanism, which is something we could examine in committee and indeed work with legislative counsel to potentially draft as an amendment. Another suggestion was to ensure that the bill would not be retroactive. However, I can confirm that new sentencing legislation is never retroactive. We also heard suggestions to ensure that judges provide clear and exceptional grounds to accompany such sentences. Once again, I am willing to re-examine and strengthen any judicial requirements to justify sentences.
I would like to conclude our second reading of this bill with a few points. Firstly, I would like to remind all members of the House that this bill, previously passed through to committee, received broad, cross-party support and was set to return to the House before Parliament was prorogued in 2021. Secondly, I am open in committee to exploring and making necessary amendments, if required, to strengthen the bill, some of which I have addressed here today. Lastly, which I think is the most important part, I am asking all members to support my bill on behalf of the families I have heard from about the stresses, pressures and devastating impact of ongoing parole hearings and being revictimized by these most heinous criminals.
Therefore, I challenge members from across the House to join me and give broad support to Bill C-235 by voting yes tomorrow and sending it before the justice committee. More importantly, I challenge them to show Canadians that we have listened.
This bill is about justice for victims. It is about sparing loved ones from the parole hearing process that forces them to relive the worst moment of their lives over and over. By supporting this bill, we can show Canadians that we are prepared to stand with victims' families and loved ones while respecting the memory of those they have lost.