Moved second reading of Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).

He said: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).

I would like to thank all MPs for voting unanimously in favour of this bill, which, if enacted, would be of significant benefit to Canadian victims of crime and their families. In particular, I applaud the work of its sponsor in the other place, Conservative MP Colin Carrie, for working to bring people together across party lines to pass this bill in the House of Commons.

The text of this bill is identical to two previous bills that unfortunately died on the Order Paper in 2019 and 2021 because federal elections were called. Those were Bill S-219, sponsored by Senator Boisvenu, and Bill C-466, sponsored by MP Lisa Raitt.

Bill C-320 would be a significant step forward in improving the transparency of the federal parole system for victims of crime and their families. Bill C-320 would ensure that they receive timely and accurate information about parole eligibility and other releases of offenders who committed crimes against these victims and their families.

Bill C-320 is short. It simply makes a targeted amendment to two sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 26 and 142. I’ll return to them later in my speech.

What is the purpose of the bill?

Bill C-320 would address the false sense of security experienced by victims and their families. They often receive incorrect information about the offender’s eligibility for release measures and the granting of that release, when they were under the impression that the offender would remain incarcerated for several more years. Flaws in the current legislation are causing this problematic situation, and that is exactly what Bill C-320 would correct if it were to come into force.

The bill seeks to improve the transparency of information provided to victims of serious criminal offences concerning the offender’s release from the penitentiary. As a reminder, a penitentiary sentence is a term of imprisonment of two years or more in a federal institution. It is a heavy sentence and is therefore only given to offenders who have committed the most serious crimes, who have a long criminal record, or who pose a significant risk of reoffending, which could jeopardize public safety and the safety of victims.

For example, anyone convicted of murder in Canada is sentenced under the Criminal Code to life imprisonment, but various legislative provisions mean that they can qualify for and obtain temporary absences or parole well before the end of their sentence. These provisions and how they are applied by prison authorities are unfortunately not explained to victims when the judge hands down the sentence.

That’s why Bill C-320 is designed to help victims and their families understand the reasoning behind certain decisions made by the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, which apply the rules that allow offenders to be released before the end of their sentence.

To this end, Bill C-320 proposes that, at the request of victims or their loved ones, they be provided with an explanation of how the offender’s eligibility date for temporary absence, parole or statutory release is determined and the dates on which they will be granted.

Bill C-320 would ensure that these explanations are provided by two correctional authorities, specifically the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada and the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada.

As I mentioned, Bill C-320 amends only two sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It amends section 26 of the act, which applies to the commissioner, and section 142, which applies to the chairperson, requiring them to provide these explanations to victims and their families within their respective areas of responsibility.

The many speeches made by members of Parliament on Bill C-320 tell us about the distressing experience of victims and their families, and invite us to empathize with them. Indeed, many of them revealed that they were stunned and petrified to learn, often by chance and without prior notice, that the offender has been eligible for or granted a release or temporary absence well before the end of the prison sentence imposed by the judge.

I would like to mention a few of these troubling examples.

First, in his speech before the Commons committee, MP Carrie talked about the unfortunate case of Lisa Freeman. The member explained that this woman’s story is the inspiration for introducing the current bill and its previous versions, Bills S-219 and C-466. Ms. Freeman’s late father, Roland Slingerland, a law‑abiding citizen, father of three daughters, husband and veteran of the Royal Canadian Navy, was savagely hacked to death in 1991 by an axe murderer who was out on parole at the time. In 1992, the murderer was sentenced to life in prison for this crime, with no chance of parole for 25 years.

However, to the dismay of Ms. Freeman and her family, the murderer became eligible for day parole and escorted temporary absences in February 2012, only 20 years into what was supposed to be a life sentence. Ms. Freeman was also surprised to learn that the murderer had also been out on escorted temporary absences. What’s more, when the murderer was transferred to another correctional facility outside Ontario that was only 10 kilometres from the home of Ms. Freeman’s sister, the family was not informed until after the fact. In my opinion, it is obvious that the victim’s family did not get all of the necessary information from the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.

As she writes in her 2016 book, She Won’t Be Silenced, Lisa Freeman fought to make her voice heard by Canadian correctional authorities so that, in future, she and her family could get information on the parole process. I commend Ms. Freeman for her concrete, ongoing efforts to shine a light on the lack of transparency in this system. However, she should not have had to bear that burden. That is why I’m asking you to quickly pass Bill C-320 to prevent other victims from going through what Ms. Freeman had to endure in order to be heard.

In light of this, I share the indignation of MP Carrie, who told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and I quote:

 . . . a lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined causes the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment towards our justice system. . . .

A sentence like life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply severity and punishment. This is simply not true. It is misleading to families, and it’s also misleading to the public. Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can be released on other forms of parole well before for personal development or temporary absences and community service work. What we are trying to correct with this bill is simply victims’ access to this information as well as an explanation.

Another more recent example than the release of the murderer of Lisa Freeman’s father is that of Paul Bernardo, who was transferred from a maximum-security institution to a medium‑security institution in May 2023.

This notorious murderer had been sentenced in the 1990s to life imprisonment for the kidnapping, torture and murder of 15‑year-old Kristen French and 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy, as well as being convicted of manslaughter in the death of Tammy Homolka. Mr. Bernardo later also confessed to sexually assaulting 14 other women, most of them between 1986 and 1991. However, the victims and their families complained that they had not been informed or given any explanations about the transfer before it took place. In its June 26, 2023, report, a Correctional Service of Canada committee recognized the serious trauma this situation had caused:

The Review Committee recognized that news of the transfer, including the nature of notification, caused emotional distress for victims, as referenced in the open letter by the Counsel for the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

The Review Committee . . . recognizes that the notification in such close proximity to the event was undoubtedly and reasonably a source of surprise and shock to the victims. . . . The Review Committee recognizes that the victims in this case have experienced unimaginable pain and that they continue to experience profound impacts as they grapple with each decision and event in this case. Additionally, the Committee recognizes that there are many indirect victims who are also impacted in a multitude of ways by case developments.

Paul Bernardo’s transfer aptly illustrates the problem with the current legislation, which results in a lack of transparency on the part of the correctional and parole system toward victims and their families. They’ve been publicly advocating for better information for years, but the system unapologetically disregards their legitimate demands.

I’m not the only one who thinks so. MPs from various parties also condemned what happened in the Paul Bernardo case in their second reading speeches on Bill C-320 to illustrate how important this bill is for victims and their families. For example, here’s what MP Peter Julian said:

. . . It is the victims that are not provided with the appropriate transparency from our justice system and with the appropriate supports. . . .

This bill is one example of how having that transparency around parole is vitally important. . . .

With the Paul Bernardo case, we saw another example of victims not receiving information that was critical. We had a transfer within the system, but the reality is that that information flow, that transparency, that providing of information to victims, was not present. . . .

Here’s another, even more recent example. It concerns Robert Pickton, the worst serial killer in Canada’s history. This criminal was convicted in 2007 on six counts of second-degree murder and charged with another 20 murders. On February 22 of this year, he became eligible to apply for day parole. In other words, he became eligible 17 years into his life sentence.

Once again, the families of the victims have not been notified and have not received any explanations from the authorities. This is what Lorelei Williams, a cousin of one of Mr. Pickton’s victims, reported to The Canadian Press:

[Williams] said no one involved in the justice system informed victims’ families that Pickton’s day parole eligibility date was approaching, and she only found out after talking with a lawyer she knows.

“They never learned how to work with us. They’re just so insensitive,” she said of members within the justice system.

“I’m not shocked that they didn’t tell us because they like to not tell us things.”

Are we going to continue to allow the system to fail to inform the families of murder victims in advance when the offender will be released into their neighbourhood, when that offender has caused them suffering that will last a lifetime by forever depriving them of a loved one?

Bill C-320 addresses that problem. In short, this bill seeks to improve the transparency of the federal corrections and parole system. In order to achieve that objective, Bill C-320 would allow victims and their families to request an explanation from authorities as to how the dates of the offender’s eligibility for or granting of temporary absences, parole or statutory release are determined.

By voting unanimously in favour of Bill C-320, MPs made a powerful gesture to promote important values under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including the right of victims of crime and their families to be treated with dignity and compassion.

I therefore urge the Senate to pass Bill C-320 to continue the admirable, non-partisan work of MPs on this file. The failure to adequately inform victims amounts to adding to their trauma. They and their families are left feeling lost when faced with certain surprises, and they do not understand why the offender is released from prison before serving the full sentence.

Thank you, senators.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)