Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
Linked statement
“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets judges make people who kidnap, sexually assault, and murder the same victim wait between 25 and 40 years before applying for parole. This spares victims' families from having to attend repeated parole hearings so soon. It is fair and legal because judges get to decide each case, and both sides can appeal.”
“moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island. It is my honour to address Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, at third reading, not because it is my private member’s bill, but because of all those who have been a part of this journey through years of hard work and effort across party lines. I rise to acknowledge the collaboration and support on every side of this House that made this bill possible. Members of every party have debated it, questioned it, amended it and made it stronger, always through the lens of respecting the families of victims. I thank them for that. That vision was never lost. The amendments they recommended, seven in all, were offered with just one purpose: to make this bill just. My hope today is that this vision and this spirit of collaboration will continue and carry this bill to the upper chamber so that it can continue its journey to becoming law. A private member’s bill is meant to be the loneliest kind of legislation, one member, one idea, one chance. However, this has been a team effort. Let us think of Kimberly Proctor who was 18 when her life was taken in Langford close to where I live. Her aunt, Jo-Anne Landolt, came from Vancouver Island to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and told the committee, in her own words, what a parole hearing costs a family like hers, or the families of Tori, Kristen and Leslie, and so many more, every family who has had to speak a loved one’s name at a parole hearing in a room they never chose to enter, and the many others whose names I have spoken as well in this House. An institution is judged by how it treats people on their worst day. Our Parliament, the justice system, the Parole Board are all institutions. The Parole Board carries one of the hardest jobs in our country. This bill criticizes none of them. It asks whether we can give a family more time before that next hard day in a parole room. Ms. Landolt told the justice committee that in the beginning, a single victim statement took her months to write. She travelled from the island to the mainland with overnight stays, security clearances and procedures. One hearing was delayed, over and again, to December, then February, then June, with a full year of waiting and preparing. For every step of preparing for those hearings, she and her family relived the worst day in their lives. She said her family attends parole hearings for Kimmy, to be her voice. She also said that this bill “won’t take away the pain...but it will ease some redundant stress.” Early on, she told the committee, “Something good has to...[come] from Kimmy’s death”, “Someone can’t die like that for nothing.” That is what this bill is for, the families. It applies to only the most heinous and depraved of crimes, where the same victim is abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in the same event or series of events. Justice officials told the committee there were about 26 offenders in federal custody between 2000 and 2020 who had crimes that fit this pattern, though not every one of them was convicted on all three offences. Let me say plainly what this bill would do, because it has been described as larger than it is. First, the starting point is that it would stay at 25 years of parole ineligibility, as it is today. Second, a jury could make recommendations. Third, in those cases, only a judge could add years up to a ceiling of 40 years of ineligibility, but only after weighing an offender’s character, the offences and the circumstances. Fourth, a judge would need to give reasons. The offender could appeal, so could the Crown, and the Parole Board still would decide whether anyone was ever released. That would not change. Now I will go to an important question that members have asked. Is it constitutional? Section 12 of the charter protects every person in this country from cruel and unusual punishment. Many Canadians, myself included, find it unimaginable to extend that protection to those who have done such horrible things, but the charter requires it and Parliament respects it. In 2022, in Bissonnette, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a provision that let courts stack parole ineligibility in multiple murder cases and that allowed 50 years all the way up to 150 years. The court said that Parliament may not remove, in advance and for every offender, any realistic possibility of parole. I take that seriously, and so did the committee. This bill is built differently. It does not stack. It does not start at 50 years. It starts where the law starts today, at 25 years of ineligibility for parole. The justice officials told the committee that the key difference from the Bissonnette case is judicial discretion. A judge could choose 26 years or 30 years; nothing is automatic. Then the committee made the safeguards stronger, adding appeals for both sides and reasons from a judge. As reported in this House, the Library of Parliament found no full paroles among the offenders in this class of most heinous crimes. The Parole Board has not treated these offenders as releasable. The bill asks only to say so less often, to the families who must prepare for every hearing. I will not stand here and promise how a court will rule. No member of this House can do that. However, officials told the committee plainly that any change to parole ineligibility would be closely examined under the charter, and I welcome that. A law that touches liberty should be examined. What I can say is that Parliament did its part. We heard from families, police, the ombudsperson for victims of crime, and justice officials, and we kept the 25-year ineligibility parole floor where it is. Eligibility for parole is a date on a calendar, not a release. Several members, who were worried about this, asked that this bill apply only to future cases, and I can assure everyone that it would. I am speaking directly to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. I believe in social reintegration, and I believe that every offender should have the opportunity to access it. I also believe there are certain horrific crimes, such as these, where that may not be possible. That is why this bill leaves the decision to judges, with justification, and gives both parties the right to appeal. It does not close the door. It requires the courts to examine each case individually. How did we get here? It is not the way many private members’ bills do. At second reading, the member for Bourassa said, “When a family has to relive their trauma at every parole hearing, it is not only difficult, it is inhumane.” He asked for the right to appeal, written reasons and a clear rule that the law look forward. At committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice moved seven amendments, and all seven carried. I thank her for her collaborative and positive work on them. The member for Mount Royal, speaking of an earlier version of this bill, told the committee, “I supported it then, and I still support it now.” The member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who grew up half a block from where Kristen French lived, showed real emotion at the table. I thank her and, through her, every member of the committee for their thoughtful questions and support. The member for Rivière-du-Nord pressed me on rehabilitation, and that is the right question for every sentencing law. The reasons and appeals are how we keep that door open honestly. I thank my own colleagues in this House. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman tabled this bill in two separate Parliaments, and he seconded it when I introduced it. He has spoken in support of it in the House many times. He has given years of hard work and passion to it. I know it is as near and dear to his heart as it is to mine. The member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River seconded it again at second reading and spoke strongly in support of it. The member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South kept the voices of families, like Tori Stafford’s father, at the centre of the committee room. The member for Oxford, our critic for justice, gave his full and strong support to this bill. Larry Brock, the former member for Brantford—Brant South, gave me guidance through this process, and I am incredibly grateful to have worked alongside him. A private member’s bill is carried by far more than its sponsor. Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the ombudsperson, told the committee that this bill is one part of a broader conversation: clearer information for families, attention to the time between reviews and a real complaints process. I support all three, and I would ask the government to bring those forward. This bill has come before the House in earlier parliaments. Twice, it has passed committee with the support of every party. We do not need an election to interrupt it again. Every party in the House has a hand in this bill, but more importantly, it belongs to the families it is meant to serve. Most importantly, it is a win for families, beginning with Kimberly Proctor’s. Together, we stood up for the families of victims. We have heard their voices, and I stand with them. I feel confident that all members of Parliament stand with them. I spoke with Ms. Landolt today. She is thankful, and she strongly supports this work. Families in Langford, in Ontario and in every province are watching what the House does today. Let us give them a vote that every party can stand behind, a vote that says regardless of who holds government, no family should be asked to relive the worst day of their lives in a parole hearing room they never chose. To the families watching us, from Vancouver Island to Quebec, this journey was not a choice, and no one should have to go through it alone. We have listened. Let us work together to pass this bill. Let us pass Bill C-235 and send it to the upper chamber with the voice of this House behind it.”
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island. It is my honour to address Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, at third reading, not because it is my private member’s bill, but because of all those who have been a part of this journey through years of hard work and effort across party lines. I rise to acknowledge the collaboration and support on every side of this House that made this bill possible. Members of every party have debated it, questioned it, amended it and made it stronger, always through the lens of respecting the families of victims. I thank them for that. That vision was never lost. The amendments they recommended, seven in all, were offered with just one purpose: to make this bill just. My hope today is that this vision and this spirit of collaboration will continue and carry this bill to the upper chamber so that it can continue its journey to becoming law. A private member’s bill is meant to be the loneliest kind of legislation, one member, one idea, one chance. However, this has been a team effort. Let us think of Kimberly Proctor who was 18 when her life was taken in Langford close to where I live. Her aunt, Jo-Anne Landolt, came from Vancouver Island to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and told the committee, in her own words, what a parole hearing costs a family like hers, or the families of Tori, Kristen and Leslie, and so many more, every family who has had to speak a loved one’s name at a parole hearing in a room they never chose to enter, and the many others whose names I have spoken as well in this House. An institution is judged by how it treats people on their worst day. Our Parliament, the justice system, the Parole Board are all institutions. The Parole Board carries one of the hardest jobs in our country. This bill criticizes none of them. It asks whether we can give a family more time before that next hard day in a parole room. Ms. Landolt told the justice committee that in the beginning, a single victim statement took her months to write. She travelled from the island to the mainland with overnight stays, security clearances and procedures. One hearing was delayed, over and again, to December, then February, then June, with a full year of waiting and preparing. For every step of preparing for those hearings, she and her family relived the worst day in their lives. She said her family attends parole hearings for Kimmy, to be her voice. She also said that this bill “won’t take away the pain...but it will ease some redundant stress.” Early on, she told the committee, “Something good has to...[come] from Kimmy’s death”, “Someone can’t die like that for nothing.” That is what this bill is for, the families. It applies to only the most heinous and depraved of crimes, where the same victim is abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in the same event or series of events. Justice officials told the committee there were about 26 offenders in federal custody between 2000 and 2020 who had crimes that fit this pattern, though not every one of them was convicted on all three offences. Let me say plainly what this bill would do, because it has been described as larger than it is. First, the starting point is that it would stay at 25 years of parole ineligibility, as it is today. Second, a jury could make recommendations. Third, in those cases, only a judge could add years up to a ceiling of 40 years of ineligibility, but only after weighing an offender’s character, the offences and the circumstances. Fourth, a judge would need to give reasons. The offender could appeal, so could the Crown, and the Parole Board still would decide whether anyone was ever released. That would not change. Now I will go to an important question that members have asked. Is it constitutional? Section 12 of the charter protects every person in this country from cruel and unusual punishment. Many Canadians, myself included, find it unimaginable to extend that protection to those who have done such horrible things, but the charter requires it and Parliament respects it. In 2022, in Bissonnette, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a provision that let courts stack parole ineligibility in multiple murder cases and that allowed 50 years all the way up to 150 years. The court said that Parliament may not remove, in advance and for every offender, any realistic possibility of parole. I take that seriously, and so did the committee. This bill is built differently. It does not stack. It does not start at 50 years. It starts where the law starts today, at 25 years of ineligibility for parole. The justice officials told the committee that the key difference from the Bissonnette case is judicial discretion. A judge could choose 26 years or 30 years; nothing is automatic. Then the committee made the safeguards stronger, adding appeals for both sides and reasons from a judge. As reported in this House, the Library of Parliament found no full paroles among the offenders in this class of most heinous crimes. The Parole Board has not treated these offenders as releasable. The bill asks only to say so less often, to the families who must prepare for every hearing. I will not stand here and promise how a court will rule. No member of this House can do that. However, officials told the committee plainly that any change to parole ineligibility would be closely examined under the charter, and I welcome that. A law that touches liberty should be examined. What I can say is that Parliament did its part. We heard from families, police, the ombudsperson for victims of crime, and justice officials, and we kept the 25-year ineligibility parole floor where it is. Eligibility for parole is a date on a calendar, not a release. Several members, who were worried about this, asked that this bill apply only to future cases, and I can assure everyone that it would. I am speaking directly to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. I believe in social reintegration, and I believe that every offender should have the opportunity to access it. I also believe there are certain horrific crimes, such as these, where that may not be possible. That is why this bill leaves the decision to judges, with justification, and gives both parties the right to appeal. It does not close the door. It requires the courts to examine each case individually. How did we get here? It is not the way many private members’ bills do. At second reading, the member for Bourassa said, “When a family has to relive their trauma at every parole hearing, it is not only difficult, it is inhumane.” He asked for the right to appeal, written reasons and a clear rule that the law look forward. At committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice moved seven amendments, and all seven carried. I thank her for her collaborative and positive work on them. The member for Mount Royal, speaking of an earlier version of this bill, told the committee, “I supported it then, and I still support it now.” The member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who grew up half a block from where Kristen French lived, showed real emotion at the table. I thank her and, through her, every member of the committee for their thoughtful questions and support. The member for Rivière-du-Nord pressed me on rehabilitation, and that is the right question for every sentencing law. The reasons and appeals are how we keep that door open honestly. I thank my own colleagues in this House. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman tabled this bill in two separate Parliaments, and he seconded it when I introduced it. He has spoken in support of it in the House many times. He has given years of hard work and passion to it. I know it is as near and dear to his heart as it is to mine. The member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River seconded it again at second reading and spoke strongly in support of it. The member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South kept the voices of families, like Tori Stafford’s father, at the centre of the committee room. The member for Oxford, our critic for justice, gave his full and strong support to this bill. Larry Brock, the former member for Brantford—Brant South, gave me guidance through this process, and I am incredibly grateful to have worked alongside him. A private member’s bill is carried by far more than its sponsor. Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the ombudsperson, told the committee that this bill is one part of a broader conversation: clearer information for families, attention to the time between reviews and a real complaints process. I support all three, and I would ask the government to bring those forward. This bill has come before the House in earlier parliaments. Twice, it has passed committee with the support of every party. We do not need an election to interrupt it again. Every party in the House has a hand in this bill, but more importantly, it belongs to the families it is meant to serve. Most importantly, it is a win for families, beginning with Kimberly Proctor’s. Together, we stood up for the families of victims. We have heard their voices, and I stand with them. I feel confident that all members of Parliament stand with them. I spoke with Ms. Landolt today. She is thankful, and she strongly supports this work. Families in Langford, in Ontario and in every province are watching what the House does today. Let us give them a vote that every party can stand behind, a vote that says regardless of who holds government, no family should be asked to relive the worst day of their lives in a parole hearing room they never chose. To the families watching us, from Vancouver Island to Quebec, this journey was not a choice, and no one should have to go through it alone. We have listened. Let us work together to pass this bill. Let us pass Bill C-235 and send it to the upper chamber with the voice of this House behind it.
