Justice and Human Rights

The committee met to study Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code to increase parole ineligibility for offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same victim in the same event. Appearing were the bill’s sponsor, MP Jeff Kibble, and Department of Justice officials Joanna Wells and Erin Kelly.

MP Jeff Kibble, the bill’s sponsor, explained that Bill C-235 gives a judge discretion, after hearing a jury’s recommendation, to extend parole ineligibility from 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years for offenders convicted of all three offences against the same victim in the same event. He argued the bill is not retroactive, does not create mandatory minimums, and was modelled after Bill C-48, which survived a charter challenge, and that the 40-year ceiling reflects the consecutive maximum ineligibility periods for the three charges. Kibble emphasized that the bill targets the worst offenders, such as Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, who are unlikely to ever be released but use parole hearings every two years to retraumatize victims’ families, and that the bill would eliminate about eight such hearings per offender. He opposed most proposed amendments, calling some legally redundant, others a risk of complicating the process, and some close to instructing judges, but said he was open to amendments that would strengthen the bill without changing its substance.

Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Lead at the Department of Justice, stated that decisions on government legislation are made by the minister, not the department, and that the department agrees Bill C-235 proposes judicial discretion. She noted that the charter landscape on parole ineligibility has changed since 2019 with the Bissonnette decision, and that any change to parole ineligibility would be closely scrutinized by the courts under section 12 of the charter. She added that Canada is among the harshest common law jurisdictions for murder penalties, and that the federal government has never invoked the notwithstanding clause for federal legislation, though it remains a legal tool.

Erin Kelly, Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, provided data showing that between 2000 and 2020, there were approximately 26 offenders in Correctional Service Canada custody whose fact patterns would fit the bill, with six new offenders entering custody in that period. She confirmed that the bill would likely face charter scrutiny due to the serious liberty interests at stake, but noted that the key distinction from the Bissonnette case is the level of discretion afforded to judges, which could allow them to tailor sentences within a 25-to-40-year range. She also stated that procedural safeguards, such as appeal rights or judicial reasons, would not impact the bill’s core objective, and that clarifying language on prospective application, while not strictly necessary due to common law presumptions, could be helpful.

The committee did not debate any motions or procedural matters during this meeting.