Public Safety Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

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

That's also what I found, but perhaps Mr. Lloyd has more to say on that.

We know that judges, Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board already have broad discretion to consider relevant factors in their decisions. Among those factors are the impact on the victim, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, and the degree of responsibility shown by the offender, which includes their refusal to disclose the whereabouts of a victim's remains.

Earlier, Mr. McCann told us that the Parole Board had taken into consideration the fact that Mr. Vader refused to reveal the location of the victims' remains. The board determined that this individual had not taken responsibility for his actions, prompting the decision to deny him parole.

Is the current system working? Do you have any information indicating that the current act needs amending in order to ease the pain of victims and give them an opportunity to properly grieve, while respecting offenders' rights?

My question is mainly for Ms. Sauer, because, with all due respect, I don't think it's Correctional Service Canada's job to make determinations regarding the recovery of remains.

[Liane Sauer]

It's difficult to understand the implications of this particular legislation, because it's not in place at the moment. However, because all board members must consider all available and relevant information, including the information we're speaking of today, that's already part of their risk assessment.

I would point to the fact that Canada has one of the highest parole success rates in the world. Over the last five years, 99.8% of federal day parole and 99.3% of federal full parole supervision periods were completed without violent reoffending. While there are cases that are very tragic, overall, parole works.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

It is now Mrs. DeBellefeuille's turn for six minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I assume you heard Mr. McCann's remarks to the committee. He said he felt that the inmate's refusal to disclose the location of his parents' bodies was a factor in the Parole Board's decision to deny him parole. He also said that the bill's passage would create a requirement and thus give victims' families the assurance that nothing was being missed by the system.

Basically, creating that requirement in relation to both parole and escorted temporary absence decisions wouldn't change much for you. It's something you are already required to consider, so if it makes victims' families feel better to have it codified, I see no reason to object. Would adding it to the list of considerations cause many problems for the Parole Board in terms of how it operates?

Do you speak French, Ms. Sauer?

[Liane Sauer]

Yes, but I'm going to answer in English.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

All right.

[Liane Sauer]

That way, I can be sure I'm giving you an accurate and complete answer.

Making this a requirement as a factor to be considered in decision-making—as it already is—would likely not change anything for board members. We would integrate that into the decision-making framework. That is separate and different from making this requirement, this factor, an authority whereby they could deny parole based solely on this factor. That would be different, but as for making it just a factor for consideration, I don't see that it would be problematic.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think everyone agrees that decisions to grant parole will not be based solely on this factor. My understanding is that this bill is good for both victims and their families. In my view, it doesn't really change how the Parole Board operates, but it ensures that the factor won't be overlooked, and that is very reassuring and comforting for the families.

I'm glad to hear you say that it wouldn't change much, unless it were the only factor being used to make parole decisions. In the case of an inmate convicted of killing someone, I believe a number of other factors would automatically be considered. I struggle to see how decisions could be based solely on this factor, so your answer is reassuring. The way I look at it, we are lawmakers, but we also have to provide comfort to victims who are going through what Mr. McCann has gone through.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Ramsay. I asked whether there were any data showing that similar legislation in other countries had made a difference and led to the recovery of more bodies. Ms. Wells answered that the findings in Australia weren't conclusive. Again, though, it's important to remember the reason behind the bill. If it doesn't disrupt how the Parole Board operates, I see no reason why we wouldn't support the bill.

Ms. Gagnon, you said in your opening statement that sentencing judges do take into consideration an accused's refusal to disclose the whereabouts of a victim's body. When someone kills a person, are they automatically asked for the whereabouts of the body? Is it possible to have an order that fails to take into account the fact that the body wasn't found?

[Katherine Belhumeur, Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch, Operations Sector, Correctional Service of Canada]

Actually, what Ms. Gagnon meant was that we receive all the court documents and we are required to consider and use any information received from the court.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

However, I'm thinking of situations where the judge did not take into consideration the whereabouts of the body when making their order, for instance, because the judge believed the offender when they said they didn't know the whereabouts. Let's say that, while incarcerated, the inmate confides the location of the body to another prisoner and you become aware of that new information. Are you required to share the information with the Parole Board, which will then consider the information in its next decision?

[Kirstan Gagnon]

Yes. We would also give the information to police, which could reopen the investigation and use the information to determine—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Correctional institutions have security intelligence officers. In many cases, a body's whereabouts aren't known at the time of sentencing, even though there are suspicions, but the information comes out while the person is in incarceration. You are responsible for passing that information on to police in the hope that the body will be found. The information automatically gets added to the inmate's file, and if Bill C‑236 is passed, you will be required to factor it into your overall assessment when deciding whether to grant the inmate parole or an escorted temporary absence.

Do I have that right, Ms. Sauer?

[Liane Sauer]

Yes, that's right.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Therefore—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Sorry, but I have to stop you there, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

We were off to a good start, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes, which is why it pains me even more to have to cut you off.

We now go to Mr. Caputo for five minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To Ms. Wells, I want to pick up on what you said to my colleague Mr. Lloyd about one of the issues, which is probably a drafting issue. Your concern is that the bill, as drafted, could imply discretion to go to a lower parole period than that which is mandatory. Is that your understanding?

[Joanna Wells]

That is one of the.... Yes, that is an issue with the drafting.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Simply put, this could be amended with a “for greater certainty” clause, saying that for greater certainty, the minimums of 10 years for second-degree murder and 25 years for first-degree murder would still apply. That would obviate any issue.

[Joanna Wells]

I wouldn't want to give any advice on drafting language on how that issue could be addressed.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

If there were an amendment, though....

Your concern is that in the way it's drafted, it could have that unintended consequence. What I'm saying is that this isn't insurmountable; it just means that something has to be changed in the drafting.

[Joanna Wells]

It is certainly one of the elements that would need to be looked at carefully, yes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

When you say “one of”, what are the rest?

[Joanna Wells]

I'm mindful of my role as legal adviser to the Minister of Justice, and not to the committee, so I want to be careful.

Issues that the committee may want to look at carefully in evaluating the bill relate to the issue I raised earlier. Courts do take into consideration the fact that a body has been concealed during the commission of the offence as “aggravating”, and we have several reported judgments that I'm happy to share.