Judges Could Delay Parole Up To 40 Years

Summary#

This bill would change the Criminal Code to let judges increase the time before parole for a person convicted of kidnapping/abduction, sexual offences, and murder of the same victim in the same event. The judge could set parole ineligibility anywhere from 25 to 40 years, after asking the jury if it wants to make a non‑binding recommendation. Life sentence remains mandatory for murder; this bill only changes when parole can be considered (Bill adding s. 745(a.1), 745.22, 745.52).

• Applies only when the offender is convicted of all three: listed abduction/kidnapping offences (ss. 279–283), listed sexual offences (ss. 151–153.1, 271–273), and murder, against the same victim in the same event or series (Bill s. 745(a.1)).
• Judge may raise parole ineligibility above 25 years, up to 40 years, considering offender character, offence nature, circumstances, and any jury recommendation (new s. 745.52; 745.22).
• Jury will be asked, after a guilty verdict, whether it wishes to recommend a number of years before parole eligibility; the judge must consider the advice but is not bound by it (new s. 745.22).
• Does not change the life sentence for murder or the parole process after eligibility; it only delays first eligibility (Bill s. 745(a.1), 745.52).
• By default, criminal penalties apply prospectively; people cannot receive a harsher punishment than the one in force when the crime was committed (Canadian Charter s.11(i)).

What it means for you#

• Households (victims’ families)

  • Fewer early parole hearings in the first 25–40 years for qualifying cases, because the offender would not be eligible to apply until the set ineligibility period ends (Bill s. 745(a.1), 745.52).
  • Jury members from the community may offer a recommendation on the number of years before parole eligibility; families may view and respond to this stage during sentencing (new s. 745.22).

• Defendants and people convicted of qualifying offences

  • If convicted of the listed abduction/kidnapping offence(s), a listed sexual offence, and murder of the same victim, the court can set parole ineligibility above 25 years, up to 40 years (Bill s. 745(a.1), 745.52).
  • Actual time in prison still depends on Parole Board decisions after eligibility. This bill only delays when you can first apply (Bill s. 745(a.1)).

• Juries

  • After a guilty verdict in a qualifying case, the judge must ask whether the jury wishes to recommend how many years (more than 25, up to 40) should pass before parole eligibility. The jury is not required to recommend a number (new s. 745.22).

• Judges and courts

  • Judges gain discretion to set parole ineligibility at 25–40 years in qualifying cases and must consider any jury recommendation, along with offender character and offence circumstances (new s. 745.52; 745.22).
  • Sentencing reasons would need to address the statutory factors and any jury recommendation (new s. 745.52).

• Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and Parole Board of Canada (PBC)

  • For affected cases where ineligibility is raised, CSC will supervise longer periods before first parole review. PBC would hold first hearings later than 25 years (Bill s. 745(a.1), 745.52).
  • Data on the number of cases that meet these criteria each year is not provided in the bill. Actual operational impact depends on case volumes. Data unavailable.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable; potential additional incarceration cost of up to 15 years per affected offender.

• No official fiscal note was published with the bill. Data unavailable.
• The bill creates no new program spending or revenues; it changes parole ineligibility for a narrow group of offenders (Bill s. 745(a.1), 745.22, 745.52).
• Longer ineligibility can extend time in custody before first parole review by up to 15 years if a judge sets 40 years (vs. 25) (Bill s. 745.52).
• CSC reports average annual institutional custody cost per offender of about CAD $183,000 (CSC Departmental Results Report 2021–22).
• Illustrative cost impact per affected offender:

• Actual added cost depends on how often judges set ineligibility above 25 years and on time actually served before parole. Data on expected case counts is not provided. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Provides proportionality and denunciation for the most aggravated murders that include abduction/kidnapping and sexual offences, by allowing parole ineligibility up to 40 years (Bill s. 745(a.1), 745.52).
• Reduces the number of parole hearings families face in the 25–40 year period, lessening their participation burden in early decades after the crime (Bill s. 745.52).
• Keeps judicial discretion and case-by-case assessment, rather than automatic increases; requires consideration of offender character and offence circumstances (new s. 745.52).
• Gives the community a voice through a jury recommendation at sentencing, while leaving the final decision to the judge (new s. 745.22).
• Maintains the possibility of eventual release, unlike unconstitutional schemes that eliminate any realistic chance of parole, by capping ineligibility at 40 years (Bill s. 745.52; cf. R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23).

Opponents' View#

• Constitutional risk: After R. v. Bissonnette (2022 SCC 23), very long parole ineligibility can engage Charter s.12 (cruel and unusual punishment) if it denies a realistic possibility of release before death. Challenges are likely if courts view 40 years as functionally eliminating realistic parole for many offenders. Data unavailable on constitutional viability.
• Higher incarceration costs: Longer time before eligibility increases custody years for affected offenders, raising CSC costs by up to 15 additional years per case (CSC DRR 2021–22; Bill s. 745.52).
• Limited public safety gain: Lifers who are paroled have low rates of violent reoffending compared to other groups, so delaying first eligibility may not reduce risk meaningfully (CSC/PBC research summaries; Data unavailable for this specific cohort).
• Uneven application: Judicial discretion and non-binding jury recommendations could lead to different ineligibility periods for similar cases across courts, raising fairness and consistency concerns (new s. 745.22; 745.52).
• Weaker incentives for rehabilitation: Pushing first eligibility far into the future may reduce motivation to engage in programs and maintain good conduct, which can affect prison safety and reintegration outcomes. Data unavailable for quantified effects.