QUESTION PERIOD — Ministry of Justice
Victims' Rights
May 28, 2026
Minister Fraser, the family of a Toronto firefighter who was brutally murdered in 2013 is now left feeling helpless after his killer was released into a supervised residential facility located in a neighbourhood frequently visited by the family despite the Ontario Review Board’s determination that the individual continues to represent “a significant threat to the safety of the public.”
Of course, this is not an isolated case. Over the past decade, confidence in our criminal justice system and in the protection of victims’ rights has steadily eroded.
Minister, will the government continue to advance a system that places the rights of offenders ahead of the dignity and security of victims and their families?
The only qualm I take with your question is in the final comment; it assumes that there has been a decision to place the rights of offenders above those of victims.
Don’t just take my word for it. Have a review of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, specifically major changes that were informed by the report of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, which significantly renovates the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including specifically providing a greater voice for victims and their families to have a role not only at trial when it comes to sentencing for victim impact statements but also on parole eligibility.
It’s an issue that we’re seized with, though I’m not familiar with the specifics of the individual case you mentioned. I fully understand why a person in that circumstance would feel the way they do. One of the things that we can do to foster a culture of confidence in the system is to give a role for those who are most impacted by crime, which, of course, are the victims.
Thank you, Minister Fraser. I’m glad you mentioned Bill C-16.
How can victims and their families have confidence that the government will put them first because the flagship Bill C-16 undermines its own stated objectives by allowing judges to bypass mandatory minimum sentences, potentially returning serious offenders to the streets far too soon and, frankly, minister, against the wishes of citizens?
Thank you. Let’s actually examine what the bill does and does not do. It doesn’t erode mandatory minimums; it restores them.
Mandatory minimums that have been struck down are of no force and effect. There is a constitutional vulnerability for most of the mandatory minimums that remain on precisely the same basis that others have been struck down.
We have recognized that, in a narrow set of circumstances where the penalty would be grossly disproportionate — I expect in circumstances that the drafters of the mandatory minimum legislation from inception would not have considered — we’re able to protect their constitutional validity. This will have the impact of bringing mandatory minimums back on the books that have been struck down and protecting those that exist.
If the words in our Criminal Code are not actually having the effect and force of law, then they are not worth the paper on —
Thank you, minister.
