Conservatives Call for Stricter Sentencing After Convicted Child Killer Granted Temporary Release

Protest signs rest against the window at the provincial courthouse in Surrey, B.C., as demonstrators make their way to the court room for the first appearance of Shane Ertmoed, accused in the murder of 10-year-old Heather Thomas, on Nov. 6, 2020. The Canadian Press/Chuck Stoody

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is calling for stricter sentencing for people convicted of murder after the Parole Board of Canada authorized a 60-day unescorted temporary absence from prison for convicted child killer Shane Robert Ertmoed.

“[Heather Thomas] went missing while riding her bike in front of her dad’s home. 10 years old. And the man who sexually assaulted and murdered her is getting day passes to go free and take cooking classes,” Poilievre said.

“We must scrap Liberal laws. And lock up murderers in maximum security penitentiaries until they die.”

The Liberal government says legislation it introduced in earlier this year makes bail laws stricter and toughens sentencing laws.

“We are strengthening the Criminal Code, supporting the front lines, and investing in long-term prevention,” Justice Minister Sean Fraser said in June.

Ertmoed was convicted in 2002 of first-degree murder in Heather’s death in October 2000 and was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. He becomes eligible for parole in 2027.

On Sept. 2, the Parole Board of Canada granted Ertmoed unescorted temporary absences following a hearing.

Ertmoed had previously been granted escorted temporary absences beginning in 2021 to perform community service. He completed roughly 100 such absences without incident, according to the record cited at his 2025 parole hearing. Those absences involved working with a nonprofit society cleaning parks and trails.

During the 60-day unescorted temporary absence, Ertmoed will live at a community residential facility, where he is subject to 24-hour supervision. He will work four-and-a-half hours a day, five days a week with a Red Seal chef, while continuing counselling and other rehabilitation programs. He is also prohibited from returning to the Lower Mainland, including Surrey, or visiting Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick, or Ontario. He cannot have unsupervised contact with girls under 18, and his internet and electronic devices are subject to restrictions and monitoring.

Interim BC Conservative Party Leader Lorne Doerkson also criticized the decision to grant Ertmoed a 60-day unescorted absence.

“This is not rehabilitation. This is a justice system that puts the comfort of a convicted child killer ahead of public safety and the rights of victims,” he said.

“Temporary absences for the worst offenders should not exist. Families who already buried a child should not have to wonder if he is walking free in their community.”

Jody Aspin, Heather’s mother, said she has struggled with depression since her daughter’s murder and believes Ertmoed should remain in prison.

“He took a life and doesn’t deserve to have a life outside of prison. Twenty-six years hasn’t made it easier. In fact, it’s made it worse,” she told The Epoch Times previously.

In 2006, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed Ertmoed’s appeal of his first-degree murder conviction. He had argued that his trial lawyer had provided ineffective assistance and that the trial judge’s repeated interventions and criticism of defence counsel had deprived him of a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that Ertmoed had not demonstrated that any shortcomings by his lawyer had prejudiced his defence or affected the fairness or reliability of the trial. The court also found that although the trial judge had strongly criticized defence counsel’s questioning and tactics, the judge was entitled to control the proceedings and prevent repetitive or irrelevant questioning.

The court concluded that the interventions did not prevent Ertmoed from presenting a full defence, and that the judge’s comments did not improperly undermine his lawyer or instruct the jury to disbelieve him. The court therefore found no basis to conclude that the trial had been unfair.

We had a problem loading this article. Please enable javascript or use a different browser. If the issue persists, please visit our help center.

Source link