Jeff Kibble
Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“There is no requirement to come back and report to Parliament, no definition of what “improving housing supply” is even meant to mean, and nowhere does the government commit to building so much as a single home. The government claims there will be 11,000 for the $13 billion it is spending.”
“However, there are people behind those numbers, and I know many of them by name. I know veterans, men and women who once wore this country's uniform, who are now living out of their trucks. I know forestry and mill workers who have been knocked down by mill curtailments and closures and are now living in campers.”
“He wrote a letter, he announced a screen, and he assured us he had stepped aside. However, when a motion came before Parliament that would have stripped the high-speed rail provisions out of the government's budget bill, the minister did not step aside at all. He stayed and voted to protect the project.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will share my time today with the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North . Before I turn to the business at hand, I would like to share that I was in Hamilton this morning for the change of command of the Royal Canadian Navy.”
“The government has a real gift for illusion. Bill C-26 is dressed up as Emerald City on the Hill, with $1.7 billion announced with a great deal of fanfare, and all of it said to be for housing. What I would ask of every member of Parliament is that they pull back the curtain and reveal what the illusion is.”
“When money on that scale can move on the say-so of one minister with no criteria and no audit, I think we all know who tends to benefit in the end, and it is rarely the young family in Langford or the senior in Duncan. Instead, it is the well connected and the well placed. This brings me to the real question at the heart of this bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 241 lines we hold for Jeff Kibble, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“I encourage my colleagues across the way to seriously consider these solutions so we can reach the goal I believe we all share, which is making housing affordable to Canadians. Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Housing told Canadians the reason housing prices are so high is the war in Iran. This is a ridiculous statement to make for a multitude of reasons, none more so than the fact that we know the housing affordability crisis did not start a few weeks ago. It has been years in the making, indeed 11 years in the making, I would suggest. My colleagues across the way keep telling us to focus on what we control, so I urge the minister to take that advice. Let us focus on the issues that truly burden the industry: too much government involvement, long wait periods, taxes.”
“Another is, importantly, tying federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, which would encourage municipalities to permit more homebuilding each year with a target of 15% more. We have suggested cutting development cost charges by 50%. This was a campaign promise by the government last year, but I am sad to see that it has not followed through. We would also like to see the removal of capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada, which would unlock billions of dollars of investments in the country's homebuilding sector. (1320) These are solutions that tackle the real problems the industry is facing and put the power back into the hands of Canada's home builders.”
“Under its current mandate, Build Canada Homes will not change zoning laws, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development charges or remove environmental duplication charges, so it will not build enough homes to meet the necessary targets or address any real challenges the industry is facing. Not only does this new agency not address these challenges, but it does not address the root cause of the crisis. We cannot build homes fast enough to keep up with our growing population. Conservatives have put forward alternative solutions that would target some of the industry challenges head-on. One is cutting the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, which would save families up to $65,000 on new homes, making these builds more affordable.”
“To do that, we must address the challenges they are facing so that they can build. Builders across Canada share the same message. They need less government involvement, fewer taxes and quicker, predictable approval times. We need to cut red tape so homes can be built effectively. What we do not need is a fourth remix of the same song. The last 10 years have proven that adding processes does not fix the problem. Instead, it adds another layer of reviews, which take time, which leads to delays, which lead to added costs, which lead to higher sale prices. Another government agency is not the answer to the crisis.”
“Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has said we need to reach a target of 430,000 to 500,000 homes built per year for the next 10 years to meet this demand. Originally, the government promised this new housing agency would build 500,000 homes per year. That was promising, yes, but it was just a promise. So far, it has not delivered. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that the Build Canada Homes agency will build only approximately 5,200 homes per year. That is only 1% of the original promise, 1% of the targeted amount needed to make housing affordable for Canadians again. This simply is not enough. This will not solve the crisis we find ourselves in, so we must rely on our private developers and builders who have the proven skills, ingenuity and fortitude to get this done.”
“Compounded delays and skyrocketing costs have created a cycle where buyers cannot afford to buy, sellers cannot afford to sell and builders cannot afford to build. We see this in crumbling housing starts across Canada. This brings me to Bill C-20 . The Build Canada Homes agency, or bureaucracy, will be the third housing agency created in the last 10 years and the fourth housing bureaucracy, none of which have succeeded so far. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yet here we are, doing the same thing again. Canadians, frankly, deserve better. Building enough homes to meet the demands of a growing population is the only way to make housing affordable again.”
“They all said the same thing: Extraneous regulations, long and unpredictable approval periods, expensive taxes and the rising cost of materials and services are killing the industry. Companies like Viking Properties, a small developer on Vancouver Island that has successfully built over 400 housing units in the Langford area, including 250 units since 2019, told us about increased fees, development cost charges and the long wait times they face to get permits approved. These all add significant costs to their projects and are holding them back from building at a faster pace. These are costs, by the way, that all end up being passed on to the buyer. These are the real problems that are slowing homebuilding in Canada and making housing unaffordable for an entire generation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island to discuss Bill C-20 , the Build Canada Homes act. Simply put, Vancouver Island, and indeed Canada, is in a housing crisis. There is an entire generation being priced out of home ownership, and far too many, including young Canadians, have lost the hope of ever owning a home. This crisis will not solve itself, and it is the job of the government to take action to fix it. Last week, I held a round table in Langford specifically to discuss housing with my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka , the shadow minister of housing. We spoke to builders, developers, mayors and other local industry leaders to discuss the challenges they are facing, along with possible solutions, to get homes built.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of fishers and anglers across British Columbia. The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Fisheries to manage the exploding population of invasive predatory pinnipeds and its impact on valuable and vulnerable salmon stocks. The invasive species of California and Steller sea lions consume more salmon than the commercial and recreational fishing industries combined. The petitioners call on the government to work with local communities and first nations to implement a pinniped management program to protect our salmon stocks, which are important to first nations and commercial and recreational fishers, as well as to our southern resident killer whales. I am pleased to present this petition, and I urge the minister to act immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, later today Vancouver Islanders will gather at the British Columbia Afghanistan Memorial in Victoria to mark the 12th anniversary of the end of Canada's mission in Afghanistan and remember the 165 Canadian lives that were lost there. Canada's mission in Afghanistan was the longest military campaign in our country's history, where more than 40,000 Canadians served. We remember the courage, sacrifice and service of those who answered the call. It saddens me to ask, however, why the Liberal government has failed to build the dedicated Afghanistan war memorial here in Ottawa that was announced 12 years ago. It is shameful.”
“Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois agree with my call for the government to work with allies and regional partners to secure safe departure operations without delay; to ensure that needed military personnel, aircraft and consular resources are in place; and to support the thousands of Canadians caught in the Middle East and the over 3,500 Canadians looking for extraction, including those within Iran?”
“Mr. Speaker, over 100,000 Canadians are caught in the growing crisis in the Middle East, and they deserve more than vague assurances and last-minute contingency planning. As the threat from the Iranian regime escalated, the government says it deployed consular staff, updated travel advisories and explored possible airspace access. Those are preparatory steps, but Canadians in the region need action. In past times of war and crisis, the Canadian government has organized emergency support and assisted in departures, such as Haiti in 2024 and Operation Lumen in support of potential evacuations in Lebanon in 2023. To date, Canada's response to the Iranian crisis has been reactive instead of proactive. When warning signs of impending crisis had been visible for months, plans and preparations should have already been in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of British Columbian fishers and anglers, calling on the Minister of Fisheries to implement 100% clipping and coded wire tagging programs for hatchery chinook and coho salmon. Coastal communities in B.C. are being hit hard by salmon retention closures, even as tens of millions of hatchery chinook are released each year. The problem is straightforward. Too few hatchery fish are being marked and tagged, making it difficult for managers to implement marked selective fisheries where hatchery fish can be retained and wild fish released. B.C.'s low marking rate remains a key barrier to retention opportunities. This would protect wild fish stocks while allowing selective retention hatchery fish, supporting coastal communities, a way of life, over 9,000 jobs and a $1.2-billion industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent with respect to the second vote. I used the app, but it did not work. It registered on the app that I had voted, but when I followed up afterward, it indicated I had not. Therefore, I am requesting unanimous consent to vote yea in support of Bill C-244 for the second vote.”
“Madam Speaker, this week, the Crofton mill on Vancouver Island shut down. Growing tariffs and lack of access to local raw logs have forced over 30 mills in B.C. to close. The unemployment rate in forestry doubled in the last month. On south Vancouver Island alone, hundreds of trucks are arriving weekly to export raw logs to foreign countries, as approved by this government. Our proposed Canadian sovereignty act would legalize rapid resource development in Canada, giving mills across B.C. a chance to survive. Will the Prime Minister protect our industries from rising tariffs, reduce raw log exports and work with Conservatives in the face of American threats?”
“Madam Speaker, I know that the terrible murder that we speak of happened in or very close to her riding. There is much research that shows that mandatory minimums do reduce the impacts and effects of, specifically, very violent and heinous crimes. It is worth looking at all sources and information as we look to improve the bill. I certainly believe that mandatory minimums are a key part of the prevention of—”
“Madam Speaker, the bill is not about the Jordan decision; although it could have impact, the bill is about mandatory minimum penalties, and certainly it is worth exploring the potential impact of the Jordan decision that the bill could have. That is why I have suggested that we need to look further into it and make improvements, including consideration for the Jordan decision.”
“Madam Speaker, the member opposite seems to be quite angry, but I must say that the Liberals have had almost 11 years to resolve this. The committee tried 19 times to put it ahead of Bill C-9 , and it was refused. That was our positive, collaborative way to try to bring this forward in a timely way. However, the bill would take away mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated assault with a gun and for human trafficking. It would take them away for multiple violent offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many others. The point of my speech, and my answer for the member opposite, is that we would ensure that those mandatory minimum penalties, which are focused on the victims, are in the legislation.”
“I believe that if we bring the focus back to the victims and do not take away parliamentary authority to set mandatory minimum sentences, C-16 could bring some extremely important and needed changes to our justice system. (1240) I hope that my colleagues across the floor will embrace the spirit of collaboration we always offer and be open to our improvements to strengthen the bill to keep mandatory minimum penalties for heinous crimes. We can all agree that we collectively face significant increased crime. With some improvements to Bill C-16 , we could work together to bring forward a positive solution for Canada. The ball is in their court.”
“Simply put, removing mandatory minimums would not do that. As elected officials, we must do everything we can to keep our communities safe. It is our job as parliamentarians to set consequences for serious crimes like these. Bill C-16 , as it stands, would undermine that outright authority. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhood, and victims and their families deserve to see justice served. There are many aspects of the bill that I agree with. The aspects that are victim-centric and the aspects that are trauma-informed are steps in the right direction that I support in the spirit of collaboration. My concern with the bill lies where victims stop being the focus.”
“Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, and human trafficking, would not have mandatory sentences. Multiple violent firearms offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many other crimes would not have mandatory minimum sentencing under Bill C-16 . This simply does not make sense. Are we seriously talking about extremely violent and heinous crimes without a minimum penalty? This part of Bill C-16 is a significant step backwards for victims and their families. This is not a victim-centred approach. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%, sexual assault is up almost 76% and violent crime is up almost 55%. Canadians need Parliament to co-operatively take real steps to make our streets safe again.”
“I am glad to see that Bill C-16 is utilizing some great Conservative concepts, and I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will also incorporate our amendments for Bill C-11 , without which there would be reduced justice for survivors of military sexual trauma. We need to ensure that our responses are victim-centred and trauma-centred. Any steps that lead us in that direction are good steps. Unfortunately, some steps are missed in Bill C-16 . As it is written, Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore every mandatory minimum prison sentence in Canada's Criminal Code, other than for murder and treason. Parliament sets mandatory minimums for heinous crimes, as is the prerogative of elected officials, but if the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there would effectively be nothing mandatory about them.”
“The bill would enable victims to receive information from authorities in the military justice system without being required to make official requests. These changes would allow victims the ability to receive information about their rights and available protection measures, and to receive information from the military justice authorities without being required to make the request. This is a shift from the current on-request framing of the National Defence Act's declaration of victim rights for certain categories of information. With CFB Esquimalt, the third-largest military base in Canada, neighbouring my riding on Vancouver Island, these changes are especially important to many members of my community. I believe that these measures would work hand in hand with Bill C-11 , which we are currently dealing with at committee.”
“From that same bill, provisions that would bring mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material have also been added to Bill C-16, which would help keep our kids safe from the most despicable of crimes. Bill C-16 would also introduce an aggravating factor for sextortion. This is a step in the right direction, although in my opinion it does not go far enough. My Conservative colleague, the member for Edmonton Gateway , had proposed a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion, which I would also have liked to have seen in the bill. Further, Bill C-16 would affect the National Defence Act, and as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I strongly recommend that we get to study this part of the bill in greater detail.”
“Madam Speaker, Laura's tragic case is not an isolated one, as activists pointed out when they gathered in Victoria. This is a decades-long issue that needs to be solved. By making femicide automatically a first-degree murder charge, we would see a vitally important step being taken to bring justice to victims like Laura and their families. It is worth noting that the term “femicide” is a little misleading, as the law would apply to intimate partner violence committed by either gender. Another positive measure that Bill C-16 would bring forward is the banning of deepfake images of intimate partners. This would keep Canadians, especially women, safe from non-consensual intimate images' being created and shared. This proposal originally came from my colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill , and her private member's bill, Bill C-216 .”
“Right now, Laura's ex-husband has been charged only with second-degree murder. Under Bill C-16 , the law would ensure that her alleged murderer would be charged to the fullest with a first-degree murder charge and also be sentenced to the fullest, as it would come with a mandatory life sentence, life in prison, with no parole eligibility for 25 years. Laura's tragic case is not an isolated one. As activists pointed out when they gathered in Victoria, this is a decades-long issue that needs to be—”
“Allegations suggest that Laura was a victim of intimate partner violence and that her death was the result of this violence. Her ex-husband was supposed to appear in court for failing to follow a court order in a separate matter the very same day that her body was found. Nearly 200 people gathered in Victoria to bring attention to Laura's death and highlight the long-standing problem of domestic and gender-based violence. They are calling for government action, and I believe that Bill C-16 is a good start to bringing justice for victims. Among the positive steps are changes that would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree murder charge. This is a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , in his private member's bill, Bill C-225 , Bailey's law.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to represent the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island. I would like to take a quick moment to pay tribute to Wanda Wetteland, a 31-year navy veteran. She was a much-loved and long-time member of Branch 134 Malahat Legion. Sadly, she passed earlier this month, just the night before her wedding. We will remember her. Before us today is Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act. On January 5, Laura Gover-Basar, a 41-year-old mother from Vancouver Island, was found dead in her home. Her ex-husband has been arrested and charged with her murder. Laura held a Ph.D. and was an instructor at Camosun College, not too far from where I live. She leaves behind two young daughters who will now have neither parent around to raise them.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech delved into some positive and constructive criticisms that will help improve this bill. As it is written, Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore every mandatory minimum prison sentence other than for murder and treason. Does my colleague feel that this will help reduce the increased crime rates, and violent crime rates specifically, that we have seen in the country?”
“It is the only aircraft capable of carrying out the operations required. Our air force is calling for this aircraft and our allies are calling for this aircraft. What more does the Prime Minister need to see? When will the Prime Minister commit to purchasing all 88 F-35s that our air force and our allies need?”
“Mr. Speaker, this week the U.S. ambassador said, “NORAD would have to be altered” if Canada were to pull back on the F-35 purchase, suggesting that the United States would have to take over operations to address threats if we did not have the correct aircraft to do it. On Monday, at the national defence committee, we heard from the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who said clearly that the F-35 is the only fighter jet with the advanced capabilities that our air force needs. This week, the Minister of National Defence said that the file is still “under review”, but we heard testimony last fall that the review was complete and on the Prime Minister 's desk. Which is it? The F-35, a fifth generation stealth fighter jet, won the competition the government ran, easily defeating its lesser competitors.”
“Mr. Speaker, forestry families on Vancouver Island are struggling. The Crofton mill closed. The Atli mill closed. The Chemainus mill was curtailed until the end of 2026. Hundreds and hundreds of jobs have been lost, but more importantly, already struggling families are now facing dire consequences. The government's handouts and subsidies are not helping those affected and will not save this critical and renewable resource industry. When will the Prime Minister deliver on his promised softwood lumber trade deal?”
“with 31 mills closed, and counting, and 45% tariffs on softwood lumber that are destroying the entire industry. I will always stand for the responsible use of natural resources and our economic well-being. Will the Prime Minister do so?”
“Mr. Speaker, I stand today with my fellow Vancouver Island colleagues. I am heartbroken. Yesterday the Crofton pulp mill in my riding announced a full mill closure, with 375 direct and 1,000 indirect jobs, and almost a billion dollars' worth of economic impact in the region, lost. However, this is not about numbers; this is about the workers and their families. They simply want jobs, safe communities and an affordable life. Many of them are from Duncan and from North Cowichan, which is already struggling with homelessness, unemployment and one of the highest crime rates in British Columbia. Life will now get worse for even more families. The Prime Minister should be ashamed. His promises, policies and platitudes have all failed, while he says, “Who cares?” He has failed to negotiate a trade deal, leaving B.C.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(1340) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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. (1335) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Bill C-235. Second reading 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. He said: 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.”