Bill C-235 Increasing Parole Ineligibility
C-235 An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Increasing Parole Ineligibility)
Short Title: Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act
Bill Type: Private Member’s Bill
Bill Sponsor: Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford)
Status: Introduced — 1st Reading, September 22, 2025. This Bill hasn't passed yet.
How would YOU vote? Scroll down to vote and comment below.
WHO GAINS POWER
- The sentencing judge gains discretion to set parole ineligibility anywhere between 25 and 40 years for the specific offence combination covered by this Bill
- The jury gains a formal role in recommending the length of parole ineligibility — the judge must ask before discharging them
- Government gains a new mandatory minimum framework for the most severe combination of crimes against a single victim
WHO LOSES POWER
- The Parole Board loses discretion — parole eligibility cannot begin before the court-ordered period expires, regardless of rehabilitation
- Future governments cannot reduce the sentence below 25 years for this offence combination without amending the Criminal Code
- ⚠️ The jury recommendation is not binding — the judge considers it but is not required to follow it
WHO GAINS MONEY
- No direct financial benefit created by this Bill
- Longer sentences mean longer incarceration costs — borne by the federal corrections system
WHO LOSES MONEY
- Federal taxpayers bear the cost of extended incarceration — 25 to 40 years per offender, with no cost estimate provided in the Bill
THE CATCH
- This Bill applies only when all three offences — abduction, sexual assault and murder — are committed against the same victim in the same event or series of events
- The 25-year floor is already the standard for first-degree murder — this Bill raises the ceiling to 40 years for this specific combination
- ⚠️ "Series of events" is not defined in the Bill — courts will determine what qualifies, which could produce inconsistent results across jurisdictions
- The jury question is prescribed word-for-word in the Legislation — judges have no flexibility in how it is asked