Remarks to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) Bill C-235: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

June 3, 2026.

We are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation. I begin there because this discussion is about more than sentencing. It is about whether families whose loved one’s life was taken through violence can encounter justice systems that respond with dignity, safety, and care. That question is especially important for Indigenous families, who have too often had to fight to have their loved ones seen, named, protected, and remembered.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime receives complaints from victims about federal departments and agencies, including the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. We do not review the merits of Parole Board decisions to grant or deny release. But we do review how victims and their families experience the federal parole process, and where systemic barriers cause preventable harm.

I want to acknowledge Ms. Landolt, Kimberly Proctor’s family, and the families who have brought this issue before Parliament. Thank you for being here today, and for the years of advocacy that brought this bill before this committee.

Bill C-235 responds to real harm. I support action to reduce unnecessary cycles of retraumatization for families affected by these serious offences.

Once parole eligibility begins, families may face mandatory parole reviews every two to five years, sometimes for the rest of the offender’s life and sometimes for the rest of their own. The impact on families is not limited to the hearing itself. It is the repeated cycle of notice, preparation, fear, postponed hearings, and renewed exposure to what was done to their loved one.

Bill C-235 recognizes this type of harm. Delaying the first parole hearing may give some families a longer period of stability, safety, and distance from a process they experience as deeply painful.

What we hear from families is that the harm of parole is not only about timing, although that is important. But the experience of the eventual hearing also matters.

We reviewed 60 OFOVC victim case files from 2019 to present related to the Parole Board of Canada.

Families describe:

• the emotional labour of preparing victim statements
• the uncertainty when hearings are postponed, waived, or changed
• the difficulty of arranging travel, work leave, childcare, cultural supports, or emotional supports
• fear when protection concerns are not included in release conditions
• frustration when they do not receive enough information to plan for their safety
• And exposed when the intimate impact of the crime provided in victim statements is shared to the offender

Some families value the opportunity to attend and speak. Others want distance from the process. Different families need different things.

This is why I would encourage the Committee to view Bill C-235 as one part of a broader conversation, not as the whole answer.

If Parliament accepts that repeated parole hearings can retraumatize families, then the next question is how to reduce that harm before and after parole eligibility begins.

In practical terms, as the Committee studies Bill C-235, I would like to highlight three issues:

1. First - Information: Families should receive clear information early. They should understand registration, parole eligibility, temporary absences, work releases, day parole, full parole, and what participation rights exist at each stage. A family should not discover too late that the parole eligibility date was not the first relevant release-related milestone.
2. Second - Timeframes: The Committee may also consider whether longer intervals between reviews are appropriate in this narrow category of cases, while also safeguarding a meaningful possibility of release.
3. Third - Complaints: Concerns raised by victims about their rights to information, protection and participation under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights need to be supported by an effective complaints process. At its best, accountability helps systems listen and improve. The Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime needs legislation or regulatory support to ensure our Office can access the materials relevant to victim complaints about the parole process.

This is not an argument against the right to parole review. It is an argument for adjusting the frequency and management of those reviews, so the system does not impose needless and foreseeable harm on people it is legislated to protect.

Note: These remarks reflect the prepared speaking text. The version delivered may have differed slightly.