Bill C-236

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and as a reason to delay parole the fact that a person who is convicted of certain offences refuses to provide persons in authority with information respecting the location of bodies or remains. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act to add that fact as a consideration in the making of certain decisions under those Acts.

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

moved that Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this may be the most important speech that I have given as a member of Parliament in my political career so far. That is because, as I think we can all agree in the House, the promises we make to our constituents, particularly constituents who are families of victims of crime, are the most important promises we make. I have been a member of Parliament for eight years, and this is the first opportunity I have had to bring forward this private member's bill.

The legislation was named in honour of Lyle and Marie McCann from St. Albert, Alberta. They were brutally murdered in 2010. Their killer is currently behind bars, but, to this day, we do not know the location of their remains.

I want to start by reading a statement from their son, Bret McCann, on behalf of the McCann family. It states, “On July 3, 2010, Travis Vader killed my parents, Lyle and Marie McCann. In early 2017, Vader received a life sentence for this despicable crime.

“Vader has never acknowledged that he committed this heinous crime.

“Our pain is everlasting. We will never forget, or forgive, what Vader has done.

“We know that it is critical for Vader's rehabilitation that he admit to having committed the murder of my parents. This is a prerequisite to any possibility of him ever having a role in normal society.

“As part of this admission, Vader would also need to provide authorities with the location of my parents' remains. It is very important to myself, and my family, that my parents' remains be located, and buried properly. I think it is a critical component of our grieving, and the one individual who knows where my parents' remains are has said nothing. Vader must reveal what he did with my parents' remains.

“‘No body, no parole’ laws have been enacted in Australia as a way of trying to bring closure to the families of murder victims. Similarly, the United Kingdom has implemented ‘Helen's law’.

“Like our Commonwealth partner countries [have done], Bill C-236 should be implemented in Canada as well.”

On July 3, 2010, 78-year-old Lyle and 77-year-old Marie McCann from St. Albert embarked on a road trip to British Columbia. They were on their way to pick up their daughter in Abbotsford, B.C. Tragically, they never arrived. On the evening of July 5, their motorhome was found ablaze at a campground near Edson, Alberta. The investigation led to the arrest and conviction of their killer, Travis Vader.

While it is rare for someone to be convicted of murder without a body having been found, a judge decided that the overwhelming amount of evidence meant he could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Vader had committed the murders. Vader is behind bars to this day, but he was eligible for parole as recently as last year. He has continuously refused to disclose the location of the remains of his victims, meaning that the family has never been able to hold a proper funeral and get that closure.

I believe that withholding information that would lead to the recovery of victims' remains is an ongoing crime against the victims' families. It is a crime that currently has no consequences. The idea that a killer could be released on parole while they continue to refuse to provide this information is abhorrent to Canadians.

What Bill C-236 proposes to do is to address this injustice by giving judges, parole boards and correctional authorities new powers to consider an offender's refusal to co-operate in disclosing the location of the victim's remains at sentencing, in parole hearings and in other release decisions. Currently, there is no requirement for an offender's refusal to disclose to be considered by judges or parole boards. The current bill seeks to amend three statutes: the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

The amendments to the Criminal Code seek to achieve this: At sentencing, after an offender has already been convicted, the court will consider their refusal to provide information on the location of their victims to be an aggravating factor. If the court decides not to consider the offender's refusal to provide this information at sentencing, it must provide the reasons for this decision. This seeks to ensure accountability and transparency for victims' families, who all too often do not understand what is going on in the courts.

If an offender is sentenced for more than two years to life and refuses to provide information on the location of their victim's remains, the court has the discretion to order that parole will not be considered until half the sentence has been served, or 10 years, whichever is less. At sentencing, the judge would have to determine, based on the facts of the case, whether they believe the offender has material information that would lead to the recovery of victims' remains. In cases in which a judge does not believe an offender has this material information, the judge would have the discretion not to use these powers.

If these powers are used, and an offender later provides material information that leads to the recovery of the victim's remains, or if the circumstances leading to the order being put in place cease to exist, such as the remains being found, then the court would have the power to revoke this order.

The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are as follows: The bill adds a proposed subsection under section 102 that the parole board has the discretion to refuse to grant parole if it deems that the offender is withholding information on the location of the remains based on the facts of the case as determined by the sentencing judge. It also proposes to add in section 116 that the parole board has the discretion to refuse to authorize unescorted temporary absences if it deems that the offender is withholding information on the location of remains.

The amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories Act are as follows: Co-operation in locating the remains of victims will be considered in granting temporary absences. These are circumstances in which an inmate may be authorized to leave prison because of humanitarian or other reasons. There is discretion to decline these requests if an inmate continues to withhold the whereabouts of the remains.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right for an accused person not to be compelled to provide testimony. This would be incriminating against themselves. This is a very important constitutional protection. Bill C-236 does not create any consequences for an accused for the purpose of compelling information about the remains of their alleged victims. These legislative powers would only come into effect after an accused has been convicted of a crime involving the death of a person and when a judge has determined, based on the facts of the case, that the offender has material information they are withholding. It strengthens the tools available to the justice system to hold offenders accountable.

To be clear, if an offender does co-operate and the remains are found, this does not guarantee they will get parole. The parole board will still have to consider a number of factors, including whether they are a threat to the community and other factors.

It is worth emphasizing that the bill has been designed to ensure that judges, parole boards and correctional officials maintain full discretion to use these powers as they deem appropriate. In cases in which a judge decides not to use these powers, they can explain their decision so that families can have that accountability and explanation. These provisions are meant to prioritize the rights of victims and their families in keeping with the objectives of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Even though the McCanns' killer has been convicted and incarcerated, he continues to traumatize the family by withholding the location of his victims. Although it was the McCann story that inspired me to bring this case here today, in sad reality, it is not the only case.

In 2014, Kathy Liknes, 5-year-old Nathan O'Brien and 66-year-old Alvin Liknes were murdered in Calgary, Alberta. At some point in the early morning of June 30, their murderer disabled a lock on their home and broke in. The circumstances of this murder are graphic, disturbing and horrifying, and I will not speak of them in the House today. However, purely by coincidence, a photo shot by a camera on a plane owned by a digital mapping company showed their bodies lying face down on the property of the convicted person. When the same plane flew over the next day, the bodies were gone. Their killer was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder. He has refused to offer any details on the location of his victims' remains. He never expressed regret or remorse. The sentencing judge said it is hard to imagine “a more cunning, cruel and horrific set of circumstances”.

There is also the murder of Lyne Massicotte. In July 2003, 43-year-old Lyne Massicotte was murdered in Quebec City. She was visiting the city to go on a date with a man she met online. It was not until early 2010 that police finally arrested her killer. According to information uncovered as part of an undercover police investigation, her killer admitted to strangling her and killing her. After violating her body, he dumped it on the banks of the St. Lawrence River. Although it has been over 20 years, the sisters and friends of Lyne Massicotte have been unable to find peace, because her remains have never been found. Her killer is eligible for parole in 2035.

There is the saga of missing and murdered indigenous women. Despite composing 4% of Canada's female population, indigenous women make up 10% of missing women in Canada and 16% of all female homicides. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls reported in 2019 that indigenous women are 12 times more likely to be murdered or go missing than non-indigenous women. In 2022, at least four indigenous women were murdered by a serial killer. The remains of Morgan Harris, Marcedes Myran and Rebecca Contois were found in landfill searches. However, the remains of the fourth victim, Ashlee Christine Shingoose, have never been found.

The killer has been convicted on four counts of first-degree murder. However, he has shown no remorse for his actions and has never co-operated in locating his victims' remains. This killer will be eligible for parole in 2047.

In my riding, there was the case of Samuel Bird this past summer. In June, a young boy, 14-year-old Samuel Bird of Paul First Nation, went missing. After an extensive search, his body was found just south of my town of Stony Plain on October 16, four and a half months after he was last seen alive.

I want to recognize the exceptional effort of all those involved. Despite investigators calling it “one of the most challenging cases [they] have been involved in”, the unwavering dedication of police, his family and volunteers allowed for Samuel to receive a proper burial. His accused killer has been charged with 14 offences. While the family of Samuel Bird will be granted some closure by his remains being found, the accused made obvious concerted efforts to hide his body in the hopes that it would never be found.

In reaction to this recent case, the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs for Treaties 6, 7 and 8 made this resolution at its convention:

We support strengthening accountability by requiring offenders convicted of serious crimes to disclose information about the location of victims' remains before parole or sentencing consideration, recognizing its potential to bring closure and healing to families of [missing and murdered indigenous persons].

Just today, we received the shocking news that one of the killers of Laura Babcock, Dellen Millard, was downgraded from maximum security to medium security. Laura Babcock went missing in early July 2012. The pair of killers are believed to have disposed of her body in an animal crematory, and her remains have never been found. Despite no body being found, overwhelming evidence led to a conviction of first-degree murder.

Just yesterday, despite having stabbed another prisoner as recently as 2023, Millard was downgraded to a medium-security prison, and his co-conspirator Mark Smich has been enjoying medium-security prison since 2021. This was done despite a refusal on the part of the killers to admit to the crime they were convicted of, and they have never provided information about the location of Laura Babcock's remains.

Even though these killers have been convicted and are incarcerated, the trauma for victims and their families continues to this day. During the trial of Travis Vader, the McCann family killer, he claimed that he was not guilty because of a lack of physical evidence. He was convicted on an overwhelming body of evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the murders.

I have heard some argue that perhaps this legislation should not be enacted because those who are convicted of a crime may be innocent and this legislation could be used on them. My simple answer to them is that by that logic, why would we ever put anyone in prison if they claim they are innocent? We have a judicial system that protects the principle of the presumption of innocence, but once somebody has been convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not up to the Parole Board to question the legitimacy of that decision.

Just last year, Travis Vader was up for parole, and the Parole Board was required to make only two key considerations: whether his release would pose an undue risk to society and whether his release promoted the protection of society. Travis Vader was never required to provide any material information that led to the recovery of his victims' remains. He was never required to admit the guilt of his crime, and he has not been held accountable for withholding this information from the families. Bret McCann has said that throughout court proceedings, Vader continuously mocked the McCann family by smirking and making obscene gestures.

The idea that somebody could be granted parole and be allowed to walk the streets in this country while they have information about the location of their victims' remains is abhorrent. It is an injustice, and this legislation seeks to solve it.

Just because a killer is prosecuted and incarcerated, that does not mean victims' families have full closure. In fact, victims' families could never have full closure, but not having the remains of their loved ones is an ongoing trauma that families face each and every day. As long as remains go unfound, it continues to impact victims' dignity and the well-being of their families.

I introduced this legislation because I believe families have a right to know where their loved ones are. They have the right to give them a proper funeral, and those who would deny them the fundamental decency of having their remains for a funeral must be held to account.

I have not made this a partisan issue. I hope that I can get support from all parties for this common-sense legislation that is needed to support families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would emphasize the sympathy that I think all members have for victims of this nature and their families. It is something we should all take very seriously, and I will expand on that shortly.

I am interested in the member opposite's thoughts in regard to judicial independence. Does he believe that judges do not take into consideration that someone is withholding an important thing, such as where a body could be found, in making a disposition?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, currently there is nothing that expressly requires judges or parole boards to consider these factors. There is nothing in our legislation that allows for judges to give an increased period of parole ineligibility when somebody is found to be withholding relevant information that could lead to the recovery of victims. I think these are novel powers that we would be giving to our justice system, novel powers that judges and parole boards would have the discretion to use as they see appropriate.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing this bill. I can assure him that it has the Bloc Québécois's support.

Here is my question. The bill would allow judges to consider a person's refusal to disclose the location of a murder victim's remains or body as an aggravating circumstance. However, my understanding of the bill is that if the judge does not consider this to be an aggravating circumstance, the judge must put that in writing and justify their decision to not take it into consideration.

Have I correctly understood the spirit of my colleague's bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly thank my colleague on the public safety committee and the Bloc Québécois for their indication of support for the legislation. The purpose of it is to provide accountability for families. It is always good, when we are talking about victims' families, to provide as much information as possible to explain the rationale and factors behind why decisions are made in our judicial system.

What I have sought to put forward is that when judges are choosing to not move forward with these powers, for whatever reasons, such as if they determine based on the facts of the case that they do not believe the killer has the material information, or they do not think it would be appropriate to put this power in, they would provide an explanation in writing so families could have some closure to understand why the powers would not be used in their family's case.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague for bringing the bill forward. As a matter of fact, I have stood in the House, over the last 10 years, dozens of times to speak to this very issue with respect to the high-profile case in my riding of Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer, who murdered Cynthia Maas, Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko and Loren Leslie. When he was sentenced in 2016, Justice Parrett said that this gentleman lacks any remorse and should not see the light of day, yet he has been moved from maximum security to medium security without any of the parents' knowledge. When I pressed Corrections Canada and the former public safety minister on it, they told me that it is not an exact science.

I applaud our hon. colleague for the bill, and I would like to offer one more chance for him to talk about the victims' families, because that is really whom we are here for today.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, something people have brought up to me and asked is whether it would really apply in a lot of cases. As I have outlined today, and as my hon. colleague outlined today, there are many cases where the legislation could be helpful in ensuring that killers who hide the remains of their victims' bodies are held accountable.

When I talk to the McCann family, and to all the families that have been involved in similar cases, I can see the trauma of not knowing and of wondering every day where their loved ones are. That ongoing trauma, I believe, is a crime. It is a crime that is not specifically recognized under the Criminal Code. There are no specific consequences for it, but it is a crime nonetheless, and the legislation seeks to create a tangible consequence for the people who would commit this crime against families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-236. I believe, at the end of the day, that all members of the House, and I would like to think all parliamentarians, can sympathize with the family members of victims in the situations being portrayed here this afternoon.

I suspect there are a number of very high-profile situations people can really relate to. The member himself, in introducing the legislation, referred to a situation that took place in my home province of Manitoba. It is something that I have been following for many years, which is the issue of murdered and missing indigenous girls and women. Back in 2010-11, I believe the number of people missing was well over 1,200, but some suggested it is 1,400.

One thing that people should be aware of is that we still have murdered and missing indigenous women and children today. It is occurring in our communities, and we do need to do more where we can. In big part, that means working with provincial jurisdictions, our different stakeholders, indigenous leaders and community members to ensure that women and girls feel safe in the communities they live in. We take that issue very seriously.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the circumstances that became a very hot political issue during the last provincial election in the province of Manitoba. There was a serial killer found out. I believe it was because there was a search of one of those steel garbage cans in an alley, and a victim's body part was discovered. I do not want to say the perpetrator's name, the serial killer. I do not want to associate any sort of fame, as negative and as horrific as it is, to the individual.

Having said that, as best I can tell, there were at least four victims. The courts might be able to give a bit more detail as I did not follow it in that kind of detail. There were four victims, and it was believed fairly confidently that the bodies were dumped in a landfill site just north of the city. That had an impact not only on the families but also on the community, and it became a major issue during the provincial election.

To the credit of Premier Wab Kinew, there was an allocation of financial resources, which was complemented by federal resources. I must say, those federal resources were provided right at the very beginning. There was an extensive search of the landfill site. It was quite encouraging that we were able to recover at least some of the remains, those of Ms. Harris and Ms. Myran, which allowed for a proper traditional burial and brought some closure not only to their families and friends but also to the community as a whole.

I think we all understand the importance of trying to support the identification and return of the remains of victims to family and friends. I would like to believe that is supported by all members, no matter what side of the House they might fall on.

I asked a question of the member opposite in regard to judicial independence and, in handing out a sentence, what sort of disposition would be given by a judge. We have to recognize that judges have the opportunity today to consider everything, in essence, that is being proposed by the member opposite. If I was to provide a few very succinct comments on it, I would indicate that with the legislation, we would potentially create contradictions and shorter periods of parole ineligibility for first- and second-degree murder. That would result in judges having a choice to pick a shorter parole ineligibility period for these offences.

It would not necessarily have the effect of making parole ineligibility periods longer, as indicated. There is no guarantee of that, even with the legislation that is being proposed. As I indicated, when we think of related factors that can be and already are considered during sentencing, the court already has the power to delay parole eligibility, including for manslaughter.

I have always been a big advocate for the Charter of Rights. I can recall the signing of it. I was actually alive when it was being signed. I value the rights and freedoms we all have. I am not too sure that the legislation that is being proposed would actually be charter-compliant. I do not know whether in fact the member has an opinion on that issue. If I had a follow-up question, that would be what I would ask the member. There will be two hours of debate on the subject matter, but maybe in his concluding remarks, the member could provide some further thoughts on that issue.

The other issue I have highlighted in the questions, to expand on that, is that there has been a great deal of concern from some members of the House who do not necessarily recognize the full role our judges play in the courtroom. I am not convinced by what the member tries to give the impression of: that victims are not already served well through the current process. Looking at the legislation, comparing it to the charter and looking at the duplication, we see that there is no guarantee that we would be looking at extended periods of time if a body is not disclosed.

I have a great number of reservations with respect to the legislation. I would encourage the member to look at some of the other comments that have been made, even by him when he indicated he was not being political.

The Conservatives have made reference to the levels of our prisons. We have some prisons where there is a higher level of security versus a lower level of security. I believe we will find that there were child murderers who were transferred from maximum-security prisons to minimum-security prisons even when the Conservatives were in power. I am not quite sure why it was necessary to make reference to that today.

Interestingly enough, there is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, which deals with crimes by repeat violent offenders and others. It would have an impact in regard to the length of parole hearings and with regard to sentencing. I believe there are actually 80 different clauses that would be reformed. Bill C-14 is going to committee today. At the same time that it would be providing for stronger, healthier and safer communities, it would reinforce the fact that there are roles for the different levels of government to play.

I realize that the member has put a great deal of effort into the legislation. I would hope that in his concluding remarks he will address the two specific points I have raised. They are valid points, and for the government to support the legislation, the member would have to provide a justification for doing so, on those two points in particular.

At the end of the day, I believe that we have to do what we can for the families, friends and communities of victims. There will be another hour of debate before the legislation goes to committee, and we will have to wait and see what happens in the vote. However, at this stage, I do not see the government's supporting the legislation as it is.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to begin my speech on Bill C-236 by pointing out that Quebec's early childhood week is drawing to a close. Yesterday was National Child Day.

It seems only fitting to share that today, because it is a day for acknowledging that children are people and citizens in their own right who are entitled to freedom, safety and a life without violence. We must never forget that children are not only our future, but also our present, and we need to do everything in our power to take them into account, especially in our political decisions.

I thought it seemed appropriate to highlight that today, considering that many children in Quebec, in Canada and around the world are experiencing violence at this very moment. We need to reaffirm that children have rights. I would like to thank the community group ESPACE Suroît for sponsoring this awareness week in my riding.

We are here today to debate Bill C‑236, introduced by my colleague from Parkland, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. His bill seeks to amend laws such as the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

Today we begin the second reading debate on this bill, which is part of a trend, a series of bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the parliamentary session. It may be worth reminding members that, this week, we debated Bill C‑221, which aims to support victims' families and keep them informed of developments regarding the offender's sentence. Bill C‑220 was also introduced, which also seeks to amend “the Criminal Code to provide that, in imposing a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen, a court must not take into consideration the offender's immigration status in Canada”. That bill was introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who sits on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and has been speaking on Bill C‑12.

We also debated Bill C‑225, which was introduced by another member who sits on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This bill responds to the sadly growing phenomenon of domestic violence.

The government also introduced Bill C-14, which essentially covers six main points: It provides clarification on the principle of restraint, introduces a reverse onus for interim release, imposes tougher bail conditions, introduces sentencing measures, eliminates conditional sentences for sexual assault and makes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It is fair to say that, since the beginning of this Parliament, the legislative agenda has had a strong focus on crime, victims of violent offenders and bail. We have been very busy. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I see that we will have a lot of work to do when it comes to hearing from witnesses on the various bills that will be passed at second reading and sent to committee.

I would like to thank my colleague from Parkland, who introduced this bill. He was motivated to introduce this bill because it responds to a real need. Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert, Alberta, disappeared 14 years ago. Their family cannot get closure because the murderer has never confessed to his crime. What is more, he refuses to reveal the location of Lyle and Marie McCann's remains. That is why this bill is called McCann's law.

I want to talk in more detail about the changes the bill would make to the Criminal Code.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and as a reason to delay parole the fact that a person who is convicted of certain offences refuses to provide persons in authority with information respecting the location of bodies or remains. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act to add that fact as a consideration in the making of certain decisions under those Acts.

The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act are an important aspect of the bill.

In fact, the purpose of this bill is to consider the victims and the families who cannot grieve their loss because the location of their loved one's remains is unknown to them. Families, like the McCann family, suffer from not knowing the whereabouts of their loved one's remains, and many never get closure, as the bill's preamble explains.

The Bloc Québécois is aware of this reality and believes that the families of victims have the right to know the location of their loved one's remains. We consider it important that judges who choose to ignore this aggravating factor be required to provide a written explanation to help family members understand their decision.

In the past, little was said about victims' rights. In recent weeks, however, we have debated a number of bills that address them. This fall, we have talked at length about victims' rights only to conclude that victims also have rights, such as the right to information. They have a right to receive information during the parole process. They have a right to understand why the person who murdered their loved one can get parole after so many years. They have a right to understand and participate in the process. The bill introduced by my colleague from Parkland is another example of Criminal Code amendments designed to keep victims better informed.

The bill states that the court must be satisfied that the offender knows the location of the body. There may be extenuating circumstances. There was a case in Quebec where the person eventually revealed the location, but it was the St. Lawrence River. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to recover a body from the St. Lawrence River. The family of the victim, Lyne Massicotte, was never really able to mourn her death. After repeated questioning, the family finally found out that the murderer had thrown the body into the St. Lawrence. This brought them no comfort, as they could not arrange a funeral without her body. This is a very difficult situation for anyone to go through, and we understand how hard it must be for all the victims' families and loved ones.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill at second reading so we can hear from witnesses and experts in committee. We want them to explain what is being done in Australia, England and the United States. We want to know how other countries, with which we have many international relations, are addressing this new phenomenon, namely, the location of victims' bodies remaining undisclosed. Is it similar to what my colleague's bill proposes? We want to hear these testimonies.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitating prisoners. We want to ensure that this particular aggravating factor is introduced, but without it being punitive or coercive. We want judges to take aggravating factors into account and uphold their decision.

Right now, many families, who may even be listening to us, are experiencing grief that they cannot process because they do not know where their loved one's remains are. My colleague's bill aims to give families and loved ones the opportunity to obtain this information. If the accused provides the information, it could perhaps allow them to obtain parole a little sooner. This could allow loved ones to get emotional closure.

We believe that loved ones deserve better and that thorough work in committee will shed the necessary light on this issue, for the sake of the victims and their families.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-236 as its seconder. Known as McCann's law, it is in memory of the late Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert.

Lyle and Marie were a happily married, retired couple who had their lives cut short when they were brutally murdered in July 2010. For 15 long years, their remains have not been found. For 15 long years, the murderer has kept the whereabouts of their remains a secret.

Fortunately, that murderer was charged, tried and convicted and is serving a life sentence, but unfortunately, and frankly outrageously, this murderer is eligible for parole in less than 15 years. He took their lives. He murdered two people and he is already eligible for parole. He applied last year and he can do so without the Parole Board being required to give any regard to the fact that he refuses to disclose the whereabouts of the remains of Lyle and Marie McCann.

In light of that, McCann's law stands for one simple underlying principle: no body, no parole. That is right. That is just. That is fair. It gives judges, parole boards and correctional authorities the discretion, and I want to emphasize the word discretion, to hold murderers who refuse to disclose, and who hide material information about, the whereabouts of their victims' remains accountable under the law. This bill, McCann's law, does so in several ways.

First, it gives judges the discretion to treat a refusal to provide this information as an aggravating factor when fashioning a sentence. If a judge determines it not appropriate to treat it as an aggravating factor, they would simply be required to state their reasons for doing so to provide for some level of transparency and accountability.

Second, a judge would have the discretion to order the Parole Board to expressly give consideration to such a refusal in determining the appropriateness and suitability of the release of such murderers. It would also follow that correctional authorities would have the discretion in such cases to deny day parole and temporary absences for such murderers.

I was disappointed with the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader when he suggested that somehow this bill is not charter-compliant. This bill could not be any more charter-compliant. I would submit it is airtight when it comes to its compliance with the charter, because it is entirely discretionary.

It would not impose, mandate or bind judges in any way; it simply provides that judges have one more tool at their disposal having regard for the particular facts and circumstances and the particular offender, nothing more, nothing less. Then, based upon that determination, parole boards and correctional authorities would also be able to exercise similar discretion. Again, they would be required to take into consideration something that is very material: a refusal on the part of a murderer to disclose the whereabouts of their victims' remains.

I want to commend my friend and colleague, the member for Parkland, for his tireless leadership in championing this legislation. He introduced this bill when he got to this place in the 42nd Parliament, as well as in the 43rd Parliament, in the 44th Parliament and now in the 45th Parliament.

As members can appreciate, it is difficult to get private members' bills to be debated and voted on, given that the House spends so much of its time on government business. Finally, in the 45th Parliament, McCann's law is here. It is being debated. It will be voted on. I certainly hope it is passed.

Most especially, I want to pay tribute to and pay my respects to the McCann family, who have gone through so much over these years, having lost a mother, a father and grandparents at the hands of a cold-blooded murderer.

I have gotten to know Bret McCann and his wife, Mary-Ann. They came to me as their member of Parliament to ask me to advocate for the repeal of so-called zombie laws. In the trial of the murderer, the trial judge, in error, applied an unconstitutional section of the Criminal Code that had been struck down but was nonetheless on the books, a zombie law. We advocated for the repeal of such laws and, to the credit of the government, it brought forward legislation that removed the zombie laws that were on the books at that time.

I know that the member for Parkland first met Bret and Mary-Anne at that time, when he was working in my office, which in turn led to where we are today, with the introduction of McCann's law.

Why McCann's law? Very simply, it is to remedy an injustice in our justice system that is illustrated by what has happened to the murderer of Lyle and Marie McCann. This is a murderer who took the lives of two innocent, elderly victims. They were on a road trip in the summer of 2010, heading to British Columbia. They stopped near Peers, Alberta. They pulled over and spent some time in a relatively remote area. He took advantage of their vulnerability in that particular place, at that particular time. He robbed them, murdered them and disposed of their bodies.

Instead of taking any sense of responsibility, instead of showing any sense of remorse, he has cruelly and callously kept the whereabouts of their remains a secret, denying Lyle and Marie McCann a proper burial, depriving the family of Lyle and Marie McCann some comfort in knowing the whereabouts of their remains, their parents and grandparents, depriving the family of some degree of the closure that comes with knowing.

In being silent, this killer is not only cruel and callous, but, as the member for Parkland said, his actions constitute a crime. It is an ongoing, perpetual crime of retraumatizing the victim's family.

The member across the way said that family members take some comfort in the system as it currently stands. I can say with certainty that Bret McCann takes no comfort in the fact that the killer, the murderer, is eligible for parole, that he applied for parole last year and can do so year after year after year for the rest of his life or that the parole board does not have to consider the fact that this cruel, callous murderer, day in and day out, taunts Bret McCann and the entire McCann family by refusing to come clean about their whereabouts. Hence, we have McCann's law.

This is right. This is just. It is needed. It is targeted. It is discretionary. It will go a long way to protect the interests of victims in our criminal justice system. For Bret McCann, for the McCann family and for all the victims' families who are going through what the McCanns have gone through, let us do the common-sense thing and pass McCann's law.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-236, addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims' families act. The short title of this bill refers to the continuing victimization of homicide victims.

The bill would make an offender's failure to disclose the location of victims' remains a consideration in parole decisions. I want to assure the member for Parkland, and indeed all my parliamentary colleagues, that this government takes its responsibilities toward victims seriously. We know the families of homicide victims have suffered unspeakable tragedy and we stand with them. They deserve our compassion, respect and support.

I am going to use my time to outline the ways victims are already supported by the government. For example, in 2015, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which enshrined victims' rights into law. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides the statutory rights to information, to protection, to participation and seek restitution.

On a practical level, this means that victims have the right to receive information about the justice system and about the services and programs available to them. Victims may also obtain specific information on the progress of a case, including information on the investigation, prosecution and sentencing, as well as the conditional release process of the person who harmed them and how the sentence is administered. Importantly, victims have the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process. They also have the right to have reasonable and necessary protection from intimidation and retaliation.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to convey their views and have those views considered. Victims may participate in meaningful ways by attending Parole Board hearings and submitting or presenting victim statements about the physical, emotional or financial impact that offences have had on their lives for consideration at any parole review. The Parole Board of Canada can then take all of this information into account when making its decision.

Victims can also propose specific conditions for consideration in the board's decision-making. For example, geographic conditions or no contact orders can be imposed if an offender is granted release. Victims can also access a photo of the person who has harmed them prior to release. If the Parole Board of Canada does not impose any conditions requested by victims, they are also eligible to obtain written reasons.

Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims of crime are legally entitled to receive information on progress made by inmates toward meeting the objectives of their correctional plan. They can also name a representative to receive information on their behalf. Additionally, victims have the right to have the court consider making a restitution order and have an unpaid restitution order enforced through a civil court. At sentencing, victims are allowed to submit a victim impact statement describing the losses they have suffered because of the crime committed against them.

Further, courts need to consider ordering restitution for all offences. An offender's ability to pay restitution is one of the factors a court will consider, but it does not prevent a court from making the order. A court must consider restitution as part of the totality of the sentence.

The factors considered when determining an appropriate sentence include the seriousness of the offence, any payments already made by the offender and the impact of the crime on the victim. There is a range of losses that can be covered by restitution, including damaged or lost property due to the crime, physical injury or psychological harm, costs related to moving out of the offender's household, costs that victims of identity theft incur to re-establish their identity and correct their credit history, and costs that victims of the non-consensual publication of an intimate image incur to have an image removed from the Internet.

The Government of Canada remains committed to empowering victims of crime with resources such as the national office for victims. It is an important resource for victims that improves how they experience federal corrections and conditional release programs.

The office provides a victim lens on correctional policy development as well as developing information products for disseminating to victims and the general public. These information products are aimed at increasing awareness so victims can better understand and navigate the process related to federal correctional and conditional release. It also engages with victims, their advocates and other stakeholders to ensure that their voices are heard in the development of the office's services and supports.

Finally, the national office for victims considers the unique needs of victims in vulnerable communities, including indigenous peoples, in all of its work. The process around correctional and conditional release can be confusing, complicated and overwhelming for victims, but services like the national office for victims can help victims understand their rights.

It is important I mention that there is a complaint mechanism. If a victim feels that their rights under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights have been infringed or denied by a federal agency or a department, they can make these complaints directly to the relevant department or agency to have issues resolved directly and in a timely manner. However, should they be unsatisfied with the outcome of the internal complaint process, they may also contact the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.

The Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime operates independently and at arm's length from the Government of Canada. While the ombudsperson does not advocate on behalf of individual victims or provide legal advice, they can make recommendations to the federal government in response to the issues raised, provide information or refer complaints to victim services.

The government will continue to stand in support of victims of crime. No system is perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague the member for Parkland for his excellent work, dedication and passion over eight years to help make the lives of victims and their families better.

I would also like to thank our Bloc Québécois colleagues for their support.

I would ask that all members make this a non-partisan issue and support what we know, as indicated earlier, would withstand a test of charter compliance. I ask that all members support the bill, which would make lives better for families like the McCanns and for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 21, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians expect their government to take a firm and unambiguous stance against violent crime.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-236, the addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims' families act. I acknowledge the intentions of the hon. member for Parkland, as well as his advocacy for victims of crime. In this spirit, we support sending Bill C-236 to committee for further study.

Despite this, in its current form, the bill falls short of delivering the decisive, concrete measures needed to confront violent offenders and to protect victims and their families. We look forward to working collaboratively to improve the bill to better the safety of all Canadians.

I want to assure the member and Canadians that our government takes the rights of victims and the parole process seriously. Bill C-236 would make an offender's failure to disclose the location of victims' remains a consideration in sentencing and parole decisions. The bill would also require courts to order the parole ineligibility period to be one-half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied that the default period outlined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the CCRA, is sufficient.

Victims and their families deserve strong, reliable protections. The intent of Bill C-236 is understandable: to support victims' families and hold offenders accountable for withholding the location of victims' remains. However, we do not believe that the bill in its current form, without changes, will meaningfully improve our criminal justice system or make our communities safer.

I will explain. What I mean is that this bill does not enhance public safety outcomes, because the mechanism it is seeking to target, sentencing and parole, is already in place and allows for consideration in sentencing and parole decisions of non-disclosure. Judges are already able to consider any factor surrounding the offence as aggravated when determining sentences and parole eligibility, including the failure to disclose the location of victims' remains. Similarly, in certain circumstances, judges can already delay parole eligibility for the length of time proposed in the bill, which is the lesser of 10 years or half the sentence.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Bill C-236 that would preclude consideration of relevant factors by correctional decision-makers, such as the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. Of additional concern is the fact that the proposed amendments to the parole regime would create confusion and contradiction regarding when an offender may be eligible for parole. This is likely unintended, but the bill would not have the effect of making these parole ineligibility periods longer, nor would it achieve the objective of addressing the continued victimization of homicide victims' families.

Specifically, the bill would create contradictory and shorter periods of parole ineligibility for first- and second-degree murder, resulting in judges' having the choice to pick a shorter parole ineligibility period for these offences. This would mean that if an offender is being reintegrated into communities, they would spend less time under supervised release by Correctional Service Canada, which helps bridge the gap between offenders' being in an institution and reintegrating into society.

With this, I want to take a moment to talk about parole and, specifically, the decision-making process, the rights and supports available for victims, and how parole contributes to the protection of society. The majority of offenders are serving fixed-length sentences. This means they will eventually be released back into the community once their sentence ends. Evidence shows that parole contributes to public safety by helping offenders reintegrate into society through a gradual, structured and supported release.

Parole decisions are made by the Parole Board of Canada, which is an independent administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from the government and free from outside influence. The decisions of the Parole Board, for which public safety is the primary consideration, are based on a thorough risk assessment, which considers all relevant and available information. To be clear, this includes information from victims of crime, the police, courts, Crown attorneys, mental health professionals, correctional authorities and private agencies.

Importantly, the nature and gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender are also factors considered in parole decisions. While parole is meant to be a bridge between incarceration and safe integration into the community, I must stress that just because an offender is eligible for parole does not mean the parole is granted. If the Parole Board of Canada deems an offender poses a risk to public safety, parole is denied.

Even when an offender is granted parole, they are not released into our communities without oversight. They remain under the legal custody of Correctional Service Canada and are subject to strict supervision, mandatory conditions and continuous monitoring by community parole officers. Parole is structured, and it is an enforceable tool that ensures offenders are held accountable throughout their reintegration. There are immediate consequences if they fail to comply. If, at any time, offenders breach their conditions, their release may be revoked by the Parole Board of Canada and they can be returned to an institution.

Importantly, the parole process also establishes a role for victims, where their input and concerns are factors that are considered in conditional release decision-making. To be clear, under the law, the definition of a victim includes not only those harmed directly, but also the family of deceased victims. Any victim may register to receive information from the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. They may also provide information to the Parole Board of Canada at any time related to safety concerns, the offender's risk to reoffend and/or the effect the crime has had on them, their family or the community.

Victims can also choose to provide a statement detailing the impact the offence has had on them, and they may attend parole hearings as observers. Victims may present a written statement to the board members that outlines the continuing impact of the offence, as well as any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose. They can request that special conditions be considered for an offender's release. While victims have a role in the criminal justice system, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that their voices continue to be heard and its policies are responsive to their concerns while seeking to not overburden or retraumatize.

In 2015, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. This provides victims of crime with the right to information, protection, participation and seeking restitution. The government will always take the protection of these rights seriously and will look for opportunities to enhance and build upon them. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, while the government supports this bill being sent to committee, we are always prepared to support other measures that would meaningfully and concretely support victims of crime and deliver public safety results for all Canadians.

An example of this is when our government introduced Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which proposes measures to enhance victim safety, participation and access to information by addressing gaps in how and when victims are informed about an offender's status and parole decisions. Proximity to a victim would be included as a factor in institution selection, and victims would have access to information about why parole hearings were postponed.

The government has also tabled Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This legislation would target crimes committed by violent and repeat offenders, and would include amendments to the Criminal Code that would establish reverse onus bail for major crimes; allow consecutive sentencing for multiple crimes, meaning longer times behind bars; impose harsher penalties for organized retail theft; and restrict conditional sentences for a number of sexual offences.

In parallel to these legislative pieces, the government is continuing its work with provinces, territories and local enforcement to address the root causes of crime. We are acting decisively to keep our communities safe by investing in violence prevention programs and cracking down on cross-border smuggling of guns, fentanyl and other drugs. This is an opportunity for all of us to stand against crime and support victims of crime.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Natural Resources.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is important for me to express my full support tonight for “Le communautaire à boutte” movement. Before becoming an MP, I served as executive director of the Hautes-Laurentides community development corporation for over five years. I worked closely with more than 50 organizations that provide services that government agencies cannot. These are dedicated people. I commend the organizations that have been around for 40 years. I will name a few: La Griffe d'Alpha, Maison Lyse-Beauchamp for the homeless, L'Arche du Nord, La Petite Mission, and Maison de la Famille du Nord. There are so many of them and they are part of our social fabric. Our regions need them, and this is a unique model that Quebec has developed over the decades. I stand with them wholeheartedly in ensuring that services for the vulnerable are not interrupted in the future.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-236. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill because we want to study it in committee. It is a Conservative Party bill that is at second reading stage. I should mention, however, that the bill may be unnecessary. Let me explain. The case cited by the Conservative Party to justify this bill shows that the Parole Board of Canada already takes account of refusals to disclose the location of a victim's body and refusals to admit guilt.

In fact, Australia since 2015, the United Kingdom since 2019 and the United States since 2021 have had similar legislation in some of their federated states, although studies suggest that these laws are unnecessary and even violate certain rights of inmates, in addition to transforming the goal of the parole system from rehabilitation to punishment.

As is always the case when the Conservative Party introduces bills related to the justice system, the Conservatives' vision of justice is not justice in the noble sense of the word. All too often, the official opposition wants Canada's justice system to be about revenge.

Not only that, but the parole system already takes certain criteria into account when making its decisions. Once again, the Conservative Party wants the legislative branch to play a role in the administration of justice. Once again, the Conservative Party wants to severely restrict the discretion of the members of the Parole Board of Canada. Once again, the party of law and order wants to control the law.

Nevertheless, setting aside partisan considerations, I want to say that, despite these reservations, I recognize that victims' loved ones deserve answers and that this bill deserves to be studied in committee. This actually allows me to point out that parliamentary committee work is fundamental to demystifying complex issues. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon just talked about this in the context of Bill C-8.

It is easy to introduce bills to pander to one's base, but the bill has to pass the smell test and that is what parliamentary committees are for. It is an opportunity to hear from academics and experts on the issues at hand. In this case, that will include families, loved ones, and the Parole Board of Canada, to learn in detail exactly how things work in practice. We need to challenge assumptions and sit down to ensure that the system is working as it should.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill, because this matter deserves to be addressed with all the seriousness, diligence, and impartiality that the issue of justice demands.

Just two weeks ago, when I rose here to speak to a Conservative Party justice bill, I said that the justice system is under attack throughout the west. It is a tactic employed by the far right and various fringe groups. I have said this on several occasions since becoming a member of Parliament, and that concerns me.

Using the justice system and judges as political tools is a road to nowhere, except to inflate dubious theories. Do we want an American-style system, with all the problems that come with it, or do we want a justice system worthy of the name? I believe and hope that we can all agree on the answer.

Populism is on the rise all over the world. It is a troubling trend. As a member of Parliament, I have made it my mission to stand as a bulwark against populism and to always focus on the facts. I urge my colleagues from all parties to do the same. Let us send this bill to committee and have it studied thoroughly to ensure that it meets our legal principles.

That is why I am saying here today that we need to look at the facts and send the bill to committee.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-236, or McCann's law.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Parkland for his relentless work in the mission for justice and closure and his support for those victims and their families who have not received a proper burial, which is something that all humans deserve.

I acknowledge the spirit of Lyle and Marie McCann, their family and their never-ending journey to justice and closure. They, among many, have experienced the harshest crimes in our society still to this day.

It is well known that indigenous women and girls also experience a disproportionate, unfair portion of these harsh crimes. Indigenous women and girls make up a small percentage of Canada's population, or roughly 2% to 4%, yet they represent a vastly disproportionate number of victims. Between 2009 and 2021, they accounted for 5% to 7% of all homicide victims. They are six times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women, and even more alarming, they are up to 12 times more likely to go missing or be murdered. These are not just numbers. These are mothers, daughters, sisters and loved ones whose absences leave permanent holes in families and communities across the country. The national inquiry heard from over 2,300 witnesses, including survivors and their families, whose courage in sharing their truths laid bare serious gaps in policing, justice and social supports.

As Conservatives, we believe the first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens, especially the most vulnerable. This means ensuring that indigenous women and girls are safe in their homes, in their communities and across this country. It means supporting practical solutions, better coordination between law enforcement agencies, stronger accountability and improved access to social supports to ensure that families are never left in the dark when tragedy strikes. It also means respecting the calls for justice, not as symbolic gestures but as actionable steps that demand measurable results.

That is what McCann's law would do. It would help take an actionable, meaningful step toward those families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls who live without closure. While women are disproportionately represented in the murders in this country, this bill would affect all ages and people who are victims.

Just this past year, the murder of Samuel Bird captured the hearts and minds of first nations indigenous peoples and all Canadians around the Edmonton, Alberta, region. Samuel went missing, and his family was desperate, searching an area larger than the city of Toronto for his remains. It was during this search, in looking for actionable, tangible ways to support Samuel's family, that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta took notice of this bill and lent its support. Of course, its priority at the time was the immediate search for Samuel, but the foresight of the chiefs had them looking into a hard future and toward their treaty partner, the Crown and the federal government, for support.

The chiefs took notice of McCann's law, and the 40-plus chiefs across Treaties 6, 7 and 8 passed a resolution that stated:

We support strengthening accountability by requiring offenders convicted of serious crimes to disclose information about the location of victims' remains before parole or sentencing consideration, recognizing its potential to bring closure and healing to families of [missing and murdered indigenous peoples].

These are the chiefs of the families back home in Treaties 6, 7 and 8, and I am proud of my leaders back home for supporting the action that this bill would take. This bill originated in and was written in their home territory of Treaty 6.

Ultimately, in this instance, Samuel's family was granted the small, gracious closure that we all hope for, for all victims: His body was found.

In our culture, our elders teach us that those who are not sent to the spirit world through a proper funeral, protocols and ceremony cannot become our future ancestors to guide us from the spirit world in this life. To this day, there are still victims' families out there who have not received closure. Justice in Canada must put victims first. Circumstances surrounding murderers' paths through the justice system exposes serious flaws in our system, flaws that have left far too many Canadian families re-victimized by a system that often prioritizes offenders over those they harm.

At the heart of this bill is critical reform ensuring that individuals convicted of the most serious violent crimes face tougher sentences and a stronger parole system when they continue to pose a clear risk to public safety. Canadians expect a justice system that is fair but also firm. They expect consequences for murder. They expect that when someone commits murder, they will not have an easy path through their time in the prison system at the victim's expense.

We have seen too many instances of killers considered for parole too early. We have seen families forced to relive the trauma at repeated parole hearings, year after year, uncertain whether justice will truly be served. This is not justice. It is a failure of the system. Bill C-236 would address this by allowing for longer periods between parole hearings in the most serious cases.

This is about giving victims and their families peace of mind. It is about ensuring that dangerous individuals are given the harshest sentences they deserve under Canadian law. It is about restoring confidence in our justice system. From a Conservative perspective, this is straightforward.

First, public safety must always come first. A government's primary duty is to protect its citizens. When someone has demonstrated a pattern of violent behaviour, the risks they pose cannot be minimized or ignored. Strengthening parole criteria in those circumstances is not excessive. It is responsible.

Second, accountability matters. Criminal acts, especially violent ones, must carry real consequences. If sentences are too lenient or parole is granted and considered too easily, we undermine the deterrence effects of our laws. We send the wrong message not only to offenders but to Canadians, who expect the justice system to uphold order and safety.

Third, we must stand with victims. Too often in this country, victims and their families feel like an afterthought. They are asked to attend parole hearings to recount their pain and fight for the continued incarceration of the very individuals who shattered their lives. Bill C-236 recognizes that reality. Limiting unnecessary parole hearings and strengthening denial provisions would reduce the emotional toll placed on families and tell them they would not have to keep reliving this trauma year after year.

Rehabilitation is an important goal, but it cannot come at the expense of safety and justice for victims. Where genuine rehabilitation has occurred, our system already has mechanisms to recognize it, but where it has not, the risk remains high.

Parole must be strongly considered to be denied. Canadians understand this balance. They know compassion for victims and accountability for offenders are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bill C-236 strikes that balance. It would ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes face consequences that reflect the gravity of their actions. It would ensure that parole is treated not as an entitlement but as a privilege that must be earned, and it would ensure that victims are not forgotten in the process.

Our justice system must be worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. That trust is eroded when violent offenders are considered for release too soon. It is eroded when families feel unheard. It is eroded when accountability is replaced with leniency.

Supporting Bill C-236 is an opportunity to begin restoring trust in our justice system. As Conservatives, we always stand for safer communities, meaningful consequences for crime and a justice system that puts victims first.

As we enter the break as parliamentarians and go into Easter, too many families out there have an empty seat at their table. This bill, while not filling that spot at their table, would certainly help bring closure for those families.

I support this bill. Help us pass it through this House.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C-236, introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Parkland. It is a bill that speaks to something fundamental, not just in our justice system but also in our shared humanity. It is about dignity and accountability, and above all it is about justice for victims and their families.

For most Canadians, when a loved one passes, there is a process. There is mourning, a funeral and a place to visit, to remember and to grieve, but for far too many families, that process is stolen from them. It is stolen by individuals who commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and then choose to withhold the very information that would allow families to lay their loved ones to rest.

Bill C-236 seeks to address this very injustice. It would do so in a targeted, thoughtful and charter-compliant way. It would not remove judicial discretion or impose automatic penalties, and it would not upend the principles of our justice system. Instead, the bill would do something both simple and profoundly important. It would ensure that when an offender refuses to disclose the location of a victim's remains, that refusal would be treated as a serious and relevant factor in sentencing, at parole and in conditional release decisions.

The bill recognizes ongoing harm, because the truth is this: When an offender withholds the location of a victim's remains, the crime does not end at conviction; it continues. It continues every single day that a family is denied answers and every single day that a parent, a child or a sibling is left wondering, “Where are they?”

We need only to look at the case that inspired the bill. In 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann were brutally murdered. Their son, Bret, has lived with unimaginable grief, but that grief has been compounded and even intensified because the animal responsible has refused to say where their bodies are. To this day, the McCann family has had no grave to visit, no proper funeral and no true closure. As Bret McCann himself said, by withholding that information, the offender continues to revictimize the family. That is exactly right. That is not silence; it is ongoing harm, yet under our current system, there is no explicit requirement for judges or parole boards to consider that refusal.

While the McCann case is a powerful and tragic example, it is certainly not an isolated one. Across this country, there have been multiple cases where families have been left without answers, and where offenders, even after conviction, refused to disclose the location of remains. In each of these cases, the pain does not end with the trial or sentencing. It continues indefinitely, because the truth is being deliberately withheld. The bill recognizes that this is not a one-off injustice but a recurring gap in our legal system that demands a legislative response. Let me be very clear about what the legislation would do.

At sentencing, a judge would be required to consider an offender's refusal to disclose the location as an aggravating factor. If the judge chooses not to consider it, they must explain why. For serious sentences, those exceeding two years to life, the court may order that full parole eligibility be delayed until half the sentence has been served, or 10 years, whichever is less. Importantly, that order can be revisited if the offender chooses to co-operate. This would create something that does not currently exist: a meaningful incentive to do the right thing, to tell the truth, to provide answers and to allow families to grieve.

The bill would also strengthen the role of the Parole Board. It would make clear that ongoing refusal to disclose the location of remains can be grounds to deny parole.

It would apply as well to temporary absences, including unescorted absences and even certain humanitarian requests, because it is entirely reasonable to ask, “If an offender continues to withhold critical information about a victim, have they truly demonstrated rehabilitation, and have they truly accepted responsibility?” The bill seeks to recognize the consequences of continued deliberate non-cooperation, and it would ensure that our justice system is equipped to respond to that reality.

Some may argue that these factors are already considered informally, but if that is the case, then there should be no hesitation in codifying them. If we already believe this matters, then we should say so clearly in law. The bill has been carefully drafted to respect the charter. It would preserve discretion and avoid automatic penalties, and it would fit squarely within existing legal principles. This is not a sweeping reform. It is not a broad overhaul of sentencing law. It is a targeted, measured response to a very specific and very real problem, and yes, it might apply to only a small number of cases each year, but for those families, those parents, those children and those loved ones, it would mean everything.

Conservatives often speak in this House about putting victims first. We hear that from time to time from the Liberals. This is an opportunity for all of us to do exactly that, to acknowledge victims' pain, validate their experience and take a concrete step to support them. I would urge all members of the House to look beyond politics on this issue, to consider the families who are still waiting for answers, to consider the dignity of those who have been lost, and to consider the very clear message we send if we fail to act.

Justice is not only about what happens in a courtroom. It is about whether families are able to move forward with dignity, with answers, and most importantly, with the truth. When an offender chooses to withhold a location, they are not simply remaining silent. They are prolonging the suffering, and they are extending the harm of their crime day after day, year after year.

The bill would ensure that our justice system recognizes that reality. It is measured, it is charter-compliant, and it is rooted in a simple principle: that victims and their families matter. We have an opportunity to correct a clear and painful gap in our legal system. I urge all members of the House, on all sides, to stand with victims' families, to stand for accountability and to support Bill C-236.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in support of Bill C-236. I want to take a moment to commend my colleague from Parkland not only for his excellent work on this bill, but also for the way that he approached its development. I know that he went out of his way to talk to victims, victims' rights groups and law enforcement to really make this an evidence-based, common-sense approach to a real problem that is happening in Canada. That approach shows the best of what we can be in this place. For that reason, among many others, I am proud to say that I will be supporting this bill, and I know that many others will be as well.

The bill would make a common-sense, long-overdue change to ensure, when a person is convicted of a crime, such as murder or manslaughter, and the offender refuses to provide information about the location of the victim's body or remains, that would be an aggravating factor at sentencing that could lead to a longer or harsher sentence, a reason to delay parole eligibility and a factor considered in decisions about conditional release, temporary absences or other corrections decisions.

My other colleagues in this place have made very good technical arguments about why this law is in alignment with the charter, but I want to make some arguments about why I think it is necessary.

In this place, we all have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, and we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws rectify deficiencies when we see that people are not being protected. There have been several high-profile cases that have been highlighted in colleagues' speeches speaking to this bill. My colleague from Parkland, after speaking to many victims, has also highlighted some of their cases in which a family has endured an unimaginable situation where their loved ones' lives were taken by somebody else and the perpetrator has been convicted of that crime, but the family does not have closure because the remains of their loved one have not been found. We know, through a lot of psychological research and reports, as well as just common sense, that to not have that closure, that ability to say goodbye and put somebody to rest, which is a very important part of a lot of spiritual practices and faiths, is a situation that continues to revictimize the family. We think about the victimization of people when crimes are perpetrated. In this instance, without the location of the remains or of the body of the victim of a murder, their loved ones, their friends and their family, become ongoing victims of crime.

My colleague from Parkland has also highlighted the fact that there are often trigger points for the family throughout the sentence of an offender in these cases. For example, if the offender comes up for parole and there is a parole eligibility issue, all of a sudden the fact that those remains have never been found is once again thrust into the forefront of the family's lives or their friends' lives. To me, that is an ongoing crime. It is an ongoing problem that we in this place should seek to rectify.

There is also something that did not come up in debate that I want to touch on a bit too. There is the dignity that we afford to somebody when they have passed. There is a dignity that somebody who has passed away is afforded, through many faith traditions and many secular traditions as well. To me, to allow an offender who has been convicted of murder to, for example, be eligible for parole when that dignity has not been afforded to their victim is not just.

What this bill would do is give the judiciary and law enforcement officials more tools to ensure that dignity is provided to the victim, but also that the ongoing victimization of their friends and family does not occur, so there can be a sense of closure and peace. Beyond the technicalities of what my colleague presented in this bill, he is also proposing to colleagues in this place that we look at justice a bit differently. To me, he has really thought about what justice means. I really support this bill for that, and because of the compassion, care and kindness he has inserted into its heart and into how he has modelled it.

I also want to address some colleagues, as I have heard them in debate make some reference to this being an American law. This legislation actually has its roots in the Commonwealth tradition. There are similar terms to the “no body, no parole” laws in Australia, as well as in the U.K. In the U.K., the legislation that went through our peer parliament was called Helen's Law. When our peers in those places were arguing about it, they debated the need to have judges, parole boards and correctional authorities. They needed more tools to address the injustice of withheld information.

Again, we must go back to the concept of giving additional justice and looking at the holistic situation of the impacts of crime. When speaking about murder, we should have no disagreement in this place that we should be looking for ways to correct and give as much justice in those situations as possible. The concept of the injustice of withheld information means that perpetrators should not be rewarded by being granted parole, for example, when we know that justice is still to be served.

Some debate came up about how this affects only a small number of cases in Canada. To me, there are a lot of logical fallacies involved in that argument. Justice should apply to all. A small number of cases should not be just waved away. There is still a requirement for justice there. If justice is not served in those cases, then it actually normalizes not having justice in those situations, which we can often see leading to recidivism, escalation of crime, or more instances happening. We in this place should be doing our job and holding the government to account to know when there are clear instances of justice not being served, so that we close the loopholes in our laws that should be common sense, in order to make sure that the principle that underlies the foundation of the Canadian national identity, the identity of our country, which is respect for the rule of law and justice when justice is required to be served, is actually embedded.

I hope this law quickly passes for all the reasons I have laid out, the compassionate reasons and the reasons for justice, but also because this precedent exists in Commonwealth peer countries as well. I want to extend a great degree of compassion and empathy to those victims who have worked with my colleague, the member for Parkland, and shared their stories. I hope they get closure by our quickly passing this bill as well.

I would just close by saying there are a lot of deficiencies in Canada's ability to deliver justice. We have seen the government over the last decade err on the side of protecting offenders and criminals, as opposed to providing justice for victims and preventing crime by ensuring that commensurate punishment is levelled to people who break the societal norms that are established in our criminal law. I think that needs to end.

There are a lot of people in the country who are looking beyond the chaos they are seeing in a lot of our streets and are starting to question whether or not we here in this place, as well as the government, understand the concept of justice. That is why Conservatives have put forward many justice bills recently, which, unfortunately, the government has voted against. However, this is a common-sense one.

I really hope that the amount of care, effort and research that my colleague from Parkland has put into the bill is supported by other members of the House, that the bill passes quickly and that we can rest assured that we have done our job in the House to stand for the principle of justice and be empathetic and compassionate to the victims of these crimes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Parkland has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to this legislation that I brought forward.

I want to start by thanking the McCann family, my colleagues of the House and all the supporters of the legislation and the victims' families.

This has been a nine-year journey for me. I was first inspired to bring forward the legislation before I was elected. I was inspired by the model put forward in Australia, and I was also inspired by advocates in the United Kingdom fighting for justice through Helen's law, so I want to thank them for inspiring me.

The legislation is named after Lyle and Marie McCann. Their killer remains incarcerated, but he is currently eligible for parole. He has refused to disclose where he hid the remains of his victims. The victim's family, the McCanns, has never been able to hold a proper funeral or have closure.

I believe that the continued withholding of that information by convicted offenders is an ongoing crime against the victims and their families. It is a crime that currently has no consequences. The possibility that people could be released on parole and be walking our streets while knowing where they hid their victims' remains, or that they could pass by their victims' families on the streets while they still know that information, is abhorrent to Canadians.

I want to address some of the criticism brought forward with respect to the legislation, and I do appreciate the opportunity to address it. I think it is unmerited. The fact is that the Parole Board does not need to consider an offender's refusal to co-operate and/or admit to their crime as a factor in parole hearings.

I would like to quote directly from the transcript of the killer in this case's parole hearing in December 2024. The Parole Board clearly stated that accountability and co-operation is not a requirement to be granted parole. Ryan Nash, a member of the Parole Board, stated to the killer, “You are entitled to hold your position of denial of accountability and responsibility, and it is not required to be granted parole that you admit to your offences.” I think this summarizes why the legislation is so needed.

In debate today, there were some other criticisms brought forward. My colleagues claimed that the legislation could result in killers' receiving a shorter period of parole ineligibility than is currently prescribed by law. That is simply not the case. In Canada, first-degree murder already requires that there be a period of parole ineligibility of 25 years, and in second-degree murder cases, a period of parole ineligibility of 10 to 25 years. In the McCann case, as well as others, the killer was not found guilty of first- or second-degree murder but was found guilty of manslaughter and was eligible for parole after a period of seven years.

In cases where someone is found to be withholding crucial information about the remains of their victims but is not convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the legislation could be utilized by the judicial system and parole boards to increase the period of parole ineligibility and to deny parole.

I want to assure all members of the House that there is nothing in the legislation that would dictate to judges, parole boards or correctional officials what they must do. They would retain full discretion to utilize the tools that Parliament provides them in the legislation as they find appropriate.

I know that the people who work in our criminal justice system, our judges, parole board members and correctional officials, are professionals and may have reasons why they may or may not consider the co-operation to find a victim's remains as a factor in their decision-making. For example, if they have a reasonable belief that the remains of victims will never be found, of course it would not be appropriate to use this legislation in that case.

The only requirement the legislation would impose is that our judicial system actors consider this very important factor, and I think that is the least we can do for victims' families. It would also require that, in cases where they choose not to utilize these tools, they provide reasons for not utilizing them. Again, I think that providing those reasons to victims' families is the least we can do.

I want to read a letter from Bret McCann, the son of Lyle and Marie:

“On July 3, 2010, my parents, Lyle and Marie McCann, were murdered. The individual responsible was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, yet he has never acknowledged his crime nor disclosed the location of my parents' remains. As a result, our family has been denied the most basic elements of closure: truth, accountability, and the ability to lay our loved ones to rest.

“Bill C-236 addresses a profound gap in Canada's criminal justice system. Meaningful rehabilitation and any credible assessment of parole eligibility must require offenders to accept responsibility for their crimes. In cases such as ours, the responsibility includes providing information about the whereabouts of victims' remains. Without such accountability, parole processes risk compounding the harm suffered by victims' families.

“Comparable legislation has already been adopted in other Commonwealth countries, including Australia's ‘No Body, No Parole’ laws and the United Kingdom's Helen's Law. These measures recognize that compassion for victims and public confidence in the justice system demand more than silence from convicted offenders—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize. The hon. member is way over time.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Therefore, I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)