HOUSEINCOMMITTEE

Private Member's Bill

45th Parliament · Session 1

Bill C-235: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

Introduced

September 22, 2025

Current Stage

HouseInCommittee

Last Updated

March 24, 2026

Sponsor

Jeff Kibble

Community Support

Community Vote

0% Support

0 votes

Support

Undecided/Abstain

Oppose

Cast Your Vote

Your vote helps inform others

Engagement

Votes

Comments

Follows

Parliamentary Votes

Statements

Bill C-235

Tue Mar 24 2026

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

Impact Rating

4/5

Short Summary

Allows judges to block parole for up to 40 years (instead of the current 25) for murderers who also kidnap or sexually assault their victims.

Parole Ineligibility

Murder

Victims' Rights

Sentencing

Criminal Code

Detailed Analysis

This bill proposes a major change to how long the most violent criminals must stay in prison before they can ask for parole. Currently, the maximum time a person convicted of first-degree murder must wait before applying for parole is 25 years. This bill would allow judges to increase that waiting period to 40 years, specifically for offenders who murder someone while also committing sexual assault or kidnapping against the same victim. It gives juries the power to recommend this longer waiting period to the judge.

Why does this bill exist?

Origin (Court Ruling)

This is a reaction to the Supreme Court's 'Bissonnette' decision which banned consecutive life sentences; this bill attempts to find a legal way to keep killers in prison longer than 25 years.

Key Points

Increases the maximum parole ineligibility period from 25 years to 40 years for specific crimes.
Applies only to offenders convicted of murder combined with sexual assault or kidnapping of the same victim.
Gives the jury the right to recommend a longer sentence (25-40 years) to the judge.
The judge makes the final decision based on the brutality of the crime and the offender's character.
Aims to spare victims' families from attending parole hearings after only 25 years.

Impact By Group

Victims' Families

(Rights Expanded)

They will not have to attend a parole hearing for 40 years instead of 25, providing a longer period of peace.

Judges

(Rights Expanded)

They gain new discretion to impose harsher sentences beyond the standard 25-year cap.

Taxpayers

(More Expensive)

Will pay for the extended incarceration and healthcare of aging prisoners who would otherwise be eligible for parole consideration.

Provincial Impact

Low (Information Sharing) Interaction

Criminal law is federal, but provinces administer the courts. Provincial prosecutors would be the ones arguing for these longer periods.

Benefits & Pros

Ensures that the most heinous offenders remain incarcerated for a longer portion of their life.

Reduces trauma for victims' families by delaying the frequency and start date of parole hearings.

Provides a stronger mechanism for judges to denounce particularly brutal crimes.

Reflects public sentiment that 25 years is insufficient punishment for torture-murder scenarios.

Beneficiaries

Families of Murder Victims

Victims Rights Advocates

Risks & Cons

High risk of being struck down by the Supreme Court as 'cruel and unusual punishment' (violating the Charter).

Increases the financial cost of incarceration, as geriatric prisoners are expensive to house.

Removes the incentive for rehabilitation for prisoners who feel they have no hope of release.

Does not guarantee public safety, as parole boards already deny release to dangerous offenders at the 25-year mark.

Affected Groups

Taxpayers (Higher prison costs)

Correctional Service Canada (Aging prison population management)

Convicted Murderers

Before & After

Currently: A person who kidnaps, sexually assaults, and murders a victim receives a life sentence but can apply for parole after 25 years. Under this Bill: That same person receives a life sentence but the judge could order that they cannot apply for parole for 40 years.

Real World Scenario

Currently: A serial predator convicted of a brutal murder in 2024 can apply for parole in 2049. Under this Bill: The judge could rule that they cannot apply for parole until 2064, when the offender is likely elderly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this mean murderers will automatically stay in prison for 40 years?

Will this bill apply to crimes that happened in the past?

Is this legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Sponsor

Jeff Kibble

Member of Parliament

House of Commons

First reading

Completed on September 22, 2025

Second reading

Completed on March 24, 2026

Consideration in committee

Not yet started

Report stage

Not yet started

Third reading

Not yet started

Senate

First reading

Not yet started

Second reading

Not yet started

Third reading

Not yet started

Abuse Potential

The primary risk with this bill is legal and constitutional rather than executive abuse. In the 2022 'R. v. Bissonnette' ruling, the Supreme Court struck down 'stacked' sentences that exceeded a person's life expectancy, declaring them cruel and unusual because they denied any realistic hope of release. By setting a 40-year bar, this bill pushes against that ruling. If passed, it could lead to years of expensive court battles, resulting in the law being voided. It risks giving false hope to victims' families that a 40-year no-parole period is legally enforceable when current precedent suggests it may not be.

Financial Impact

Direct Cost. Keeping an inmate in maximum security costs over $120,000 per year. Extending sentences by 15 years adds roughly $1.8 million per offender to the taxpayer burden.

Implementation Risk

High. The risk isn't logistical, it is legal. There is a high probability this law will be challenged and potentially struck down by the courts for violating the Charter.

Broad Economic Impact

Indirect. Higher prison costs are funded by general tax revenue.

Everyday Life

Minimal impact. The average citizen is unaffected unless directly involved in a violent crime case.

Admin Burden

Moderate impact on courts due to longer sentencing hearings and inevitable appeals.

Timeline

Immediate application to new trials upon Royal Assent.

Bill Text Versions

1 Version

View different versions of the bill text or compare changes between versions

Select Version

Summary

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

Full Text

Short Title Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act . R.S., c. C- 46 Criminal Code 2 Section 745 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.1) in respect of an accused who has been convicted — in respect of the same victim and the same event or series of events — of an offence under section 151 to 153.1 or 271 to 273, an offence under section 279 or 280 to 283, and murder, that the accused be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the accused has served at least twenty-five years of the sentence or until the period referred to under section 745.52 has expired; 3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 745.21: Recommendation by jury 745. 22 When a jury finds an accused referred to in paragraph 745(a.1) guilty, the judge presiding at the trial shall, before discharging the jury, put to them the following question: You have found the accused guilty of ( state offences ) and the law requires that I now pronounce a sentence of imprisonment for life against the accused. Do you wish to make any recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release on parole? You are not required to make any recommendation but if you do, your recommendation will be considered by me when I am determining whether I should substitute for the twenty-five year period, which the law would otherwise require the accused to serve before the accused is eligible to be considered for release on parole, a number of years that is more than twenty -five but not more than forty. 4 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 745.51: Ineligibility for parole 745. 52 At the time of the sentencing under section 745 of an accused referred to in paragraph 745(a.1), the judge who presided at the trial of the accused or, if that judge is unable to do so, any judge of the same court may, having regard to the character of the accused, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made under section 745.22, by order, substitute for twenty-five years a number of years of imprisonment that is more than twenty-five but not more than forty without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances.

Version History

September 23, 2025 at 04:09 AM

Doc ID: 13599324