Public Safety Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[Kirstan Gagnon, Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement Sector, Correctional Service of Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of the committee's study of Bill C-236.

Before I begin, I'd like to respectfully acknowledge that we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

My name is Kirstan Gagnon, and I'm the assistant commissioner of the public affairs, culture and engagement sector at the Correctional Service of Canada, or CSC. I'm also responsible for victim services and CSC's restorative justice program.

It's a pleasure to see all of you again.

I'm joined today by Katherine Belhumeur, director general of offender programs and reintegration.

The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to a just, peaceful and safe society. CSC carries out sentences imposed by the courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders. We also support their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens by providing programs in our institutions and in the community.

To protect communities, CSC works with its criminal justice partners to gradually release federally sentenced offenders and support their safe reintegration through structured supervision in the community.

CSC provides informed recommendations to the Parole Board of Canada regarding parole and temporary absences. These recommendations are based on a multitude of factors, including the ability to safely monitor an offender in the community and the responsibility of the offender regarding the crime. Public safety is the paramount consideration throughout the correctional process.

As regards Bill C‑236, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires decision-makers within the correctional system to take into consideration all relevant available information pertaining to the offender. That includes the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, the nature and gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, and information from the trial or sentencing process.

Furthermore, if the sentencing judge decides to delay parole eligibility because the offender refuses to disclose the location of a body, that information will appear in the sentencing decision and any related order of which CSC receives a copy.

CSC is already required to take into consideration information relevant to the decision or recommendation.

However, CSC will make any necessary adjustments in light of the outcome of the committee's deliberations on this bill. As we appear before you today, following the testimony of the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, we must also maintain a clear focus on victims and continue working to uphold their rights.

I would like to acknowledge the lives of all those who have been affected by crime, including Mr. McCann, from whom you heard testimony in the first hour, and his family. I would like to extend my sincere sympathies to Mr. McCann and his family for their tragic loss. Conversations such as today's can be extremely difficult, especially for families who have not had a sense of closure that may come from knowing where the remains of a friend or loved one may be.

Over the coming year, CSC will be enhancing its national victim services program. These changes will lead to more victim engagement and information sharing and will strengthen a victim's right to participation, information and protection. This includes new requirements to consider victim statements, including victims' views and concerns, prior to decisions for penitentiary placements and transfers. The changes will also include consideration of victims' concerns in relation to the location of an offender's incarceration.

A revised provision in the Criminal Code will also come into force on January 7, 2027. It will require courts to provide us with the contact information of victims who confirm in court that they wish to receive information from us about the offender who harmed them. This will allow us to make an active offer to victims, and it helps to close a long-standing gap in the delivery of victim services between different levels of government.

Finally, we have a restorative opportunities program that would allow consenting victims and offenders to share information and respond to unanswered questions, which could include finding remains.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I would be pleased to take any questions you have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gagnon.

We will now hear Ms. Sauer's opening remarks. You have five minutes.

[Liane Sauer, Deputy Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Liane Sauer, and I am the deputy chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada. I'm joined today by my colleague Shannon Dorken, who's our acting director general for policy, planning and operations.

Thank you for the invitation to appear in relation to your study of Bill C-236, addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims' families act.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the profound impact violent crime has on victims and families, including Mr. McCann, whom we heard from this morning. This is particularly true in cases in which a victim's remains have not been located. The uncertainty surrounding these cases can cause lasting trauma to those affected.

We are here today to explain the PBC's mandate and the legislative and decision-making framework within which board members make conditional release decisions.

As part of the criminal justice system, the PBC contributes to the protection of society by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely reintegration of offenders and the sustained rehabilitation of individuals into society as law-abiding citizens.

The board makes quality conditional release, record suspension and expungement decisions, as well as clemency recommendations, in a transparent and accountable manner, while respecting diversity and the rights of offenders and victims.

Our board members are independent decision-makers. When making parole decisions, they must determine whether the offender would present an undue risk to society by reoffending before the end of their sentence and whether release would contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the offender's reintegration.

Board members consider all relevant available information, including information from courts, police, victims, the Correctional Service of Canada and offenders themselves. Board members are responsible for assessing that information in the context of the case and the statutory criteria for release.

The board uses an evidence-based, research-informed, structured decision-making framework to assess an offender's risk. It considers relevant information in key risk areas and evaluates whether each factor increases risk, reduces risk or has no impact on the likelihood of reoffending. Public safety is always the paramount consideration in all conditional release decisions.

In achieving the purpose of conditional release, the board members must make the least restrictive determination consistent with the protection of society. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique circumstances of each offender and offence.

Bill C-236 would make consideration of an offender's refusal to disclose information concerning the location of a victim's body or remains explicit in legislation. Board members already consider all relevant available information, which includes this type of information when it's available.

Bill C-236 would also create a new authority for the board to refuse parole or an unescorted temporary absence, based on the offender's refusal to disclose information concerning the location of a victim's body or remains. If Bill C-236 is enacted, the PBC would incorporate the new legislative requirements into its decision-making framework and operational processes. Board members would continue to assess each case independently, in accordance with the law, the applicable statutory criteria and all relevant available information before them.

In closing, I would reiterate that the board's focus remains the protection of society through fair, impartial and evidence-based decision-making.

Thank you very much. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Sauer.

We will now go to Mr. Lloyd for six minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.

I'll start with Ms. Sauer.

To reiterate, you said that if this legislation passes, it's already a consideration.

I want to read from a CBC article related to Mr. Vader's 2024 day parole hearing and quote from Mr. Nash, who was on the parole board. He said, “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”.

Now, I understand that this is a consideration and that it's not a requirement, but from my understanding of what you said, if this were to be made an explicit requirement, it would not adversely impact the deliberations of the Parole Board. Can you clarify this?

[Liane Sauer]

Thank you for the question.

Board members have to consider all relevant information. They use a structured decision-making framework to help them assess risk, and they consider all the factors. It's like a road map to help them sort through and grapple with all the information. Normally, there's not one factor that is a determinant; it's all the information that leads them to a decision.

It is true, as you commented, that one factor may not be a determinant, but they will always consider all the information before them, including the information from the courts and the information we're discussing today.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

By adding an explicit factor in relation to revealing the location of victims' remains, that would not adversely impact the decision-making of the Parole Board of Canada. Would it interrupt your processes in any way? Would it cause any harm to the process to have this included?

[Liane Sauer]

By making it a consideration, probably not. Giving the Parole Board members the authority to deny parole on the one factor would be contrary to what they do already, which is to look at and consider all information, not just one factor.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Yes.

If somebody has been convicted of murder and they refuse to take accountability for their crime, do you think that person can truly be rehabilitated?

[Liane Sauer]

That's a personal opinion. Board members consider all the information, including conduct, personal responsibility and transparency around the details of the offence. They factor in all those considerations. While public safety is the paramount consideration, they are still looking to see whether offenders can be gradually and safely reintegrated into society under supervision and special conditions.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

If somebody is given a period of parole ineligibility—in Mr. Vader's case, I believe it was seven years, but under this legislation they could be facing a period of parole ineligibility that is significantly longer than that—do you think that provides an incentive for offenders who have been found to be withholding material information to provide that information?

Maybe this is a question for the Correctional Service.

[Liane Sauer]

It could be for the justice department.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Yes.

If there is a period of parole ineligibility as there is right now, which could be as low as seven years, and this legislation seeks to expand that period of parole ineligibility, do you think that provides...? It seems like common sense to me that if somebody is facing a longer period of parole ineligibility, there is an incentive to then provide that information in order to be eligible for parole at an earlier date. Is that not the case?

[Joanna Wells, Team Lead and Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can speak to that from a general sentencing perspective, if it would help.

In determining parole ineligibility and parole sentences, there are mechanisms that courts use to incentivize offenders to support the investigation. There's no requirement that they do so, but it can act as a mitigating factor.

The failure to do so generally is not an aggravating factor. It doesn't aggravate it, but it is something the court, as my colleagues have said, already takes into consideration.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Okay.

I'll stay with the justice department for the rest of my time.

What is the single biggest issue with this bill, and how could it be mitigated?

[Joanna Wells]

That's a big question.

As has been stated, the law already provides the power for courts...and there are examples in case law in which courts have considered the concealment of a body as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Although it's not codified, the courts already have broad discretion to consider it.

One thing the committee may wish to consider is that, at least from the department's reading of the bill, the way that the power to delay parole has been drafted seems to provide an option for courts to also consider a shorter period of parole ineligibility for first- and second-degree murder, which I don't understand as the intent.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Under the law, 25 years is mandatory for murder in the first and second degrees.

[Joanna Wells]

Currently, yes....

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Why would any judge give a lesser period of parole ineligibility? Also, there is an amendment to give them the ability to go further, but—

[Joanna Wells]

I can't speak to amendments, because I don't have them, but as the bill is drafted, it does not prevent a court from considering a lower period of parole ineligibility for first- and second-degree murder.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Why would a judge do that?

[Joanna Wells]

They have the opportunity to do so. I'm not suggesting that they would, but the law provides them with that opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

MP Ramsay, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge how difficult it must be for families of victims when they are not only deprived of their loved ones but also do not know where their remains are.

I'm very grateful to Mr. McCann for coming and for his testimony today.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the list of people I have whose remains haven't been found, even after the conviction of their murderers. It's a short list, but all these people should also be acknowledged, and I'm going to name their names.

They are Elizabeth Bain, Hugh Sinclair, Marnie Frey, Georgina Papin, Brenda Wolfe, Lyne Massicotte, Lyle and Marie McCann, Sandra Klaus, Nathan O'Brien, Kathryn Liknes, Alvin Liknes, Morgan Harris, Marcedes Myran and Ashlee Shingoose.

I'm not sure this list is exhaustive, but it's the best I could do.

If I had had an opportunity in the first hour, my question would have been for Mr. Lloyd, but I'll direct it to Ms. Wells.

From my research, I couldn't find one body that was recovered through the “no body, no parole” law or through Helen's law. I don't want to deny that the symbolism of these laws is important—it is very important—but in terms of efficiency, in terms of recovering bodies, do you have more information regarding any case in which these laws actually led to the recovery of the remains of the deceased?

[Joanna Wells]

I don't have more information than that. I am aware of a report out of Queensland, Australia, five years after the enactment of a similar law, which concluded that there had been no bodies recovered as a result of these laws, but I don't have further information beyond that.