Submission to the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) on Bill C-235: Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

Submitted by: Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Ombudsperson
Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime
June 2026

Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC)

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime is an independent federal agency operating at arm’s length from the Department of Justice. The Ombudsperson reports directly to the Minister of Justice as a Special Advisor, receives and reviews complaints from victims about federal departments and agencies, and advises on criminal justice legislation and policy.

With respect to the federal correctional system, the Office reviews issues raised by victims concerning the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) and the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), investigates how those processes impact victims, and conducts systemic investigations. While the Ombudsperson cannot review Parole Board of Canada decisions, victims can contact our Office if they believe their rights are not being respected in relation to federal criminal justice policies, laws, and programs for victims of crime, including matters such as parole hearings.

Position

The Office supports the objective of reducing the repeated retraumatization that some victims and their families experience in the parole process.

At the same time, Bill C-235 is a sentencing bill, and does not reform the parole process. It may delay the first mandatory parole hearing for some victims and their families, but it does not resolve the issues that victims and survivors most often raise with the OFOVC at the parole stage.

Those concerns are directly linked to victims’ rights under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR), including the rights to information (s. 6), security (s. 9), protection (s. 10), and participation (s. 14). Sentencing reform alone will not, on its own, make those rights meaningful in practice at the parole stage.

Bill C-235 and the Harm it Seeks to Address

Bill C-235 would amend the Criminal Code, allowing judicial discretion to extend parole ineligibility in cases where an offender is convicted of offences in three categories, in relation to the same victim and the same event or series of events: a specified sexual offence, an abduction offence, and murder. If that threshold is met, the bill would:

• In a jury trial, require the trial judge to ask the jury, whether it recommends parole ineligibility beyond 25 years;
• authorize the sentencing judge to set parole ineligibility at a period between 25 and 40 years; and
• impose a 25-year minimum period of parole ineligibility for qualifying second-degree murder cases, instead of the current 10- to 25-year range.

The harm the bill seeks to address is real. Once parole eligibility begins, victims and their families in these cases may face mandatory parole reviews every two to five years, often for the rest of the offender's life. The burden is not limited to the possibility of release. It is the repeated cycle of hearings, preparation, uncertainty, and renewed exposure to the facts of the offence.

At the same time, Bill C-235 is a sentencing bill with narrow reach. Its reach is limited because it requires convictions for all three categories of offences against the same victim in the same event or series of events. In some cases involving sexual violence, abduction, and murder, the prosecution may proceed only on the murder count. As a result, the bill may not capture all cases that appear to fall within its intended scope.

What Bill C-235 Would Change—and What It Would Not

Bill C-235 would change when some victims’ families first face a mandatory parole hearing.

It would not:

• change how often reviews recur once parole eligibility begins
• modify the hearing process, location, format, or accommodations;
• reform victim notification rules under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
• strengthen victim supports, navigator services, or financial assistance to attend hearings
• strengthen implementation or enforcement of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights at the parole stage
• remove other forms of conditional release that may arise before full parole eligibility

That final point is especially important. Even with a conviction for murder with a minimum period between 10 to 25 years, offenders may still be eligible to apply for escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences, work releases, and eventually day parole, three years before full parole eligibility.^[1]

The Office has also heard that some victims delay registering because they view the offender’s parole eligibility date as the first relevant milestone or are not ready to engage with the process. This can result in missed information about earlier decisions, and opportunities to participate. Clear communication about the bill’s intended effect is therefore essential.

What the OFOVC Hears from Victims About the Parole Process

An internal review of OFOVC case files involving the Parole Board of Canada between 2019-2024 shows that the harms victims describe arise not only from parole eligibility itself, but from the structure, frequency, and management of parole processes over time.

Victims and families describe a process that can:

• provide too little time and clarity
• change suddenly through postponements, waivers, or paper reviews
• allow formal participation without a meaningful voice
• fail to reflect victims’ real safety needs in release conditions
• result in access barriers, including in virtual settings, due to technical issues and limited accommodations for older persons, hard-of-hearing participants, persons with disabilities, and those in rural communities with limited access to technology
• leave victims with little confidence that complaints will lead to independent review or corrective action

Information and Notice

Victims described difficulties receiving information that was timely, clear, and usable, including:

• short notice of hearings—in some cases 9 to 16 days^[2]
• notices that were unclear about whether a hearing would proceed, be postponed, be waived, or proceed by paper review instead
• limited clarity about what information could be shared and when
• reasons for decisions, including temporary absence decisions, that did not clearly show how victim safety concerns were considered

Why this matters: A later first hearing does not resolve problems of late notice, ambiguity, or inadequate reasons once conditional release processes begin.

Participation and Meaningful Voice

Meaningful participation begins with clear, timely, and usable information.

Victims reported that “participation” did not always mean they were meaningfully heard, because they are given or have:

• limited time or ability to present their statement in the way they wished
• uncertainty about what could be included or how their statement would be used
• frustration when processes changed late (e.g., paper reviews or waivers), after being prepared to attend

One victim described this tension directly:

“Observing my ex’s day parole hearing last year, and the full parole hearing this year, was validating in many ways, but it was also harmful. As you are likely aware, during a parole hearing, victims are restricted to their prepared statements and otherwise are committed to silence even when untruths are spoken and they are disparaged by the offender or their representative.”^[3]

Victims also described situations where paper reviews or offender waivers effectively removed what they understood to be their last opportunity to attend in person, present a statement directly, or be heard by decision-makers.

The Office also heard that some victims value parole hearings as one of the few points where they can receive structured information about:

• the offender’s progress and behaviour
• risk and release planning
• accountability

Key point: Victims and families do not all experience parole in the same way. Some seek greater distance from the process, while others value hearings as an important source of information, accountability, and participation.

Procedural Instability

Victims described how postponements, waivers, and repeated scheduling changes caused harm by forcing them to:

• repeatedly prepare statements and arrange supports
• reorganize travel, work leave, and childcare
• cope with repeated uncertainty about whether proceedings would occur as scheduled

Protection and Privacy Concerns are Often Intertwined

Victims raised concerns that release conditions did not always reflect their actual safety needs, including:

• geographic restrictions that were absent, too narrow, or imposed too late
• anxiety about how personal information disclosed to support safety concerns could be used when shared with the offender

In a written submission to our office, another survivor wrote:

“We shared concerns with your Office about offenders being released on parole or moved to an institution within the same community where their victim(s) live and being out in the community on escorted and unescorted release. While we recognize offenders eventually are released into the community, from a victim safety perspective, more care and attention must be given to their safety and security concerns.”^[4]

As noted in the OFOVC’s systemic investigation into the experiences of survivors of sexual violence, survivors may have to disclose highly personal information about ongoing harm to request conditions such as geographic restrictions. That information is typically shared with the offender. Survivors have described this as an impossible choice between safety and privacy. Some survivors want the Board to understand the continuing impact of the offence, but do not want the offender to receive those details.

Complaint Processes Do Not Inspire Confidence

In several cases, victims described complaint responses as bureaucratic, and impersonal, with little visible corrective action. Some questioned whether PBC and CSC were effectively “investigating themselves.”^[5]

The OFOVC does not have legislative authority to compel the production of documents, recordings, or information needed to fully review victim complaints. This limits the Office’s ability to investigate parole-related concerns and reinforces victims’ perceptions that there is no effective, independent enforcement of their rights at the parole stage.

Recommendations

To strengthen the objective of Bill C‑325 in reducing the repeated retraumatization experienced by some victims and their families in the parole process, the Committee may wish to consider whether longer intervals between parole reviews are appropriate following repeated denials. Early-stage preliminary paper reviews could help reduce unnecessary hearings until the Parole Board determines that a case is ready for a full review.

In addition, the Office has previously made the following recommendations:

Allow partial summaries of victim statements: The federal government should amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) to allow victims to request that offenders in federal custody receive a partial summary of their victim impact statement, limiting details of emotional or psychological harm, while still providing full details on any conditions requested when a statement is used by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) or Parole Board of Canada (PBC) for decision-making. The victim should be provided with the summary and with the ability to remove any personal or other information that affects their safety.^[6]

Properly investigate complaints: The federal government should amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) to provide that the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) shall receive, upon request, any document, recording, paper, or information relevant to a complaint made by a victim.^[7]

Limit the number of allowable postponements of parole hearings: While there are many reasons a cancellation may be necessary, there should be a policy to review and limit multiple voluntary postponements and delays. Many victims go through lengthy preparations prior to a parole hearing and have reported feeling re-traumatized and undermined by repeated and last-minute postponements.^[8]

Looking Ahead

Bill C-235 addresses part of the problem, but not all of it. It may delay the first parole hearing for a narrow subset of cases, but it does not resolve the problems victims and families most often describe with the parole process itself.

The Committee’s study of Bill C-235 is therefore an important opportunity to look beyond sentencing alone and to strengthen victims’ rights where victims experience them in practice at the parole stage. The OFOVC would welcome the opportunity to assist the Committee further, including by providing additional casework evidence and technical input on CCRA reforms and CVBR implementation.

Footnotes

[1] Public Safety Canada. (2022, September 20). Sentence Calculation: An Explanation of the Basics of Sentence Calculation with Examples.

[2] PBC advised us that victims are generally given advance notice of the month of an upcoming hearing (often around three months ahead), with the confirmed date provided closer to the hearing. However, CSC’s Commissioner’s Directive 784 cites notifying victims at the start of case preparation and does not prescribe a fixed minimum notice period (such as three months).

[3] OFOVC. (2024). Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: a systemic investigation. Written Submission #02

[4] Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC). (2024). Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: a systemic investigation. Written Submission #13

[5] We have observed progress in how PBC and CSC handle victim complaints. For example, victims are now more likely to receive a phone call to discuss their complaint before they receive a written response.

[6] Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC). (2024). Victim Impact Statements, Sentencing and Corrections. Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: a systemic investigation. Recommendation 6.2

[7] Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC). (2024). Victim Impact Statements, Sentencing and Corrections. Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence: a systemic investigation. Recommendation 8.3

[8] Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC). (2024). Worthy of Information and Respect: Improving Support for Victims of Crime: A response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST). Recommendation 13.