Louis Villeneuve

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the third reading of Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. During debate on this bill at second reading, members of the House recognized both the seriousness of the offences the bill aims to address and the difficult issues it raises regarding ineligibility for parole, the interests of victims, and the principles governing sentencing in Canada. Since then, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has had the opportunity to examine these issues in greater depth. It has also been able to hear a range of important perspectives on these issues, including those of Jo-Anne Landolt, whose 18-year-old niece, Kimberly Proctor, was tragically murdered in 2010; the federal ombudsman for victims of crime; and representatives of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We are grateful to all the witnesses who took the time to share their experiences and expertise with us. Their contributions have enabled the committee to better understand the problem the bill seeks to address and have helped identify ways to improve it. The result is the amended bill before us today. Although the committee made significant changes to strengthen the legislative framework, the substance of the proposal remains unchanged. Bill C-235 would apply to a narrow category of cases where an offender is convicted of murder, a kidnapping offence and a sexual offence involving the same victim and the same event or series of events. These are exceptionally serious offences that already carry a life sentence. Bill C-235 will give sentencing judges additional discretion to extend the parole ineligibility period beyond 25 years, up to a maximum of 40 years. It is important to remember that parole eligibility does not mean release. It means that an offender becomes eligible to apply for parole and that the Parole Board of Canada will determine whether to grant parole. Bill C-235 would change when this process can begin for the first time in these narrowly defined cases. For victims and their family members, the parole process can have emotional and practical repercussions. Those who choose to participate may be asked to write or update statements detailing the persisting impact of the crime, attend hearings and present their concerns about the offender’s possible release. This can involve reliving painful memories, talking about their loss, taking time off work or having to travel to get to a hearing. By allowing a judge to delay the start of this process, Bill C‑235 aims to allow families more time before they have to deal with these demands. Ms. Landolt’s testimonial gave the committee a striking example of this burden. She described her family’s experience during the parole process in the years following the murder of her niece, Kimberly. She spoke of how hard it had been to draft the victim statement, get to the hearings, face one report after another and have to relive the circumstances of Kimberly’s death. Her family firmly supports Bill C‑235, convinced that a longer period leading up to parole eligibility, in cases like Kimberly’s, could lighten the load for families such as hers. The committee also heard from the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, whose office studied victims’ experiences with the federal parole process. He noted that experiences and needs varied widely. Some appreciated the opportunity to participate in the process, while others preferred to be more removed from the process. This diversity in experience underscores the importance of the discretionary power provided for in Bill C‑235. Rather than automatically delaying parole eligibility in all eligible cases, the bill would allow a sentencing judge to determine whether a longer period is justified, taking into account the offender’s character, the nature and circumstances of the offences and any recommendations made by the jury. The committee’s study also highlighted ways to strengthen the bill’s safeguards to ensure that it would withstand charter scrutiny. For example, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed support for the bill but raised some concerns about how an extension of the parole ineligibility period might infringe on the rights guaranteed by section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Among other things, they recommended that the bill expressly grant offenders the right to appeal the length of their parole ineligibility period. The committee adopted this recommendation by adding an explicit right for an offender to appeal a decision to extend their parole ineligibility. The bill has also been amended to give the Crown a corresponding right of appeal when the parole ineligibility period is less than 40 years, or when the sentencing judge decides not to extend the parole ineligibility period. Given that the bill would allow the period to be extended by up to 15 years, this right of appeal constitutes an important safeguard. It will also enable appellate courts, over time, to develop guidance on the circumstances in which an extension of the parole ineligibility period may be warranted. The committee has also amended the bill to require sentencing judges to provide reasons, either orally or in writing, for any decision to grant or deny an extension of the parole ineligibility period. This promotes transparency by ensuring that the basis for the decision is clear. Taken together, these safeguards reflect an important conclusion that emerged from the committee’s study: The desire to ease the burden on victims’ families must be part of a fair, balanced and carefully regulated process. The interests of the victims, on the one hand, and the fairness and integrity of the sentencing process, on the other, are not conflicting concerns. In fact, Dr. Roebuck addressed this point directly, while acknowledging the harm that repeated parole proceedings can cause. He emphasized the importance of fairness and reintegration. He also agreed that ensuring the law could withstand constitutional scrutiny was, in itself, in the victims’ best interests. Ms. Landolt also agreed that strengthening the bill’s transparency safeguards and ensuring its resilience against any legal challenges would be in the best interests of the victims and their families. She said that this could help the victims regain a sense of normalcy and recover from their tragedy. The committee also heard from a number of witnesses who said that the support offered to victims and their families throughout the parole process could be further improved. Dr. Roebuck identified some other concerns, including the information provided to victims, the timelines for the frequency of parole hearings, the burden involved in attending proceedings and the mechanisms available when victims feel that their rights have not been respected. In his testimony, he emphasized that Bill C-235 addressed one aspect of victims’ experiences with the parole system, but that more work needed to be done to make the process more responsive to victims’ needs. Bill C-235 focuses on a category of crime that is particularly serious and traumatic. The committee’s work ensured that, in doing so, the legislation not only considers victims and their families, but is also better able to withstand scrutiny and provide a lasting response to the harms they have described. I therefore encourage members from all parties in the House to support it for swift passage at third reading so that it can proceed without unnecessary delay.