Evidence of meeting #52 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mccann.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

McCann  As an Individual
Benjamin Roebuck  Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime
Gagnon  Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement Sector, Correctional Service of Canada
Sauer  Deputy Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada
Wells  Team Lead and Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Belhumeur  Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch, Operations Sector, Correctional Service of Canada

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us on this beautiful Monday morning for meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order adopted on March 26, 2026, the committee is meeting on its study of Bill C‑236, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

I would like to welcome the witnesses, starting with our distinguished colleague Dane Lloyd, member of Parliament for Parkland, who is sitting in a different spot today.

We're also fortunate to have our distinguished colleague Michael Cooper, member of Parliament for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Next, we have Bret McCann, who is joining us by video conference.

Good morning, Mr. McCann. Thank you for joining us at a slightly different hour, we believe. We didn't know exactly what time it would be at home for you.

Finally, we have Benjamin Roebuck, federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.

Each witness will have five minutes for opening remarks.

I note this first panel will actually be with us for 75 minutes, because we have the generous presence of the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. It will be a little longer than usual.

With that, we will begin with opening remarks from Dane Lloyd.

Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor for five minutes.

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having me here to speak to Bill C-236, the addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims' families act, also known as McCann's law.

I must admit, this is the first time I've attended committee as a witness, so I hope you'll all go easy on me, particularly Frank.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

I'm also honoured to be here today, joined by my friend MP Michael Cooper and, of course, Bret McCann, son of Lyle and Marie McCann, in whose name I brought forward this legislation.

On the evening of July 5, 2010, the motorhome of 78-year-old Lyle and 77-year-old Marie McCann was found ablaze at a campground near Edson, only two days into the couple's planned road trip to British Columbia. Their remains have never been located. However, the investigation led to the arrest and eventual conviction of their killer, Travis Vader. While it is rare for someone to be convicted without remains having been found, a judge found that the overwhelming amount of evidence meant that he could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Vader had committed the crime.

Vader is currently behind bars, but he was eligible for parole as recently as December 2024. The idea that this criminal would be free to walk the streets of our communities while withholding the location of his victims' remains is abhorrent. Victims and their families have every right to the closure and dignity of a funeral, and the McCanns continue to be victimized in this inability to lay their loved ones to rest.

Similar legislation has already been adopted in other Commonwealth countries. In 2015, legislation was brought into effect in Australia that ensured offenders convicted of homicide cannot be released on parole if they are withholding information on the location of the victims' remains. Australian courts have declared that “withholding the location of a body extends the suffering of victim's families and all efforts should be made to attempt to minimise this sorrow”.

In 2021, the United Kingdom passed Helen's law, named in memory of 22-year-old Helen McCourt, who was murdered in 1988 but whose killer has never revealed her body's location. The United Kingdom law places a legal duty on the parole board to consider the non-disclosure of the victim's remains when deciding upon release.

In 2017, I was elected on a mandate to bring McCann's law to Parliament. It has been nearly 10 years, and my opportunity to advance this legislation is today. What this legislation intends to do is simple: Bill C-236 seeks to address the continued injustices faced by the McCann family and others by requiring that judges and parole boards consider an offender's refusal to co-operate in disclosing the location of the victims' remains as a factor in parole and sentencing decisions. Currently, there is no requirement for an offender's co-operation to be considered by judges or parole boards, nor does an offender who has been charged in court have any obligation to admit to their offences.

I would like to quote a transcript from Mr. Vader's most recent parole hearing to illustrate this point. This is from the Parole Board: “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.”

Bill C-236 allows for a judge, based on the facts of the case, to determine that non-disclosure of victims' remains is an aggravating factor. This bill will also give judges the discretionary authority to extend the period of parole ineligibility. Similarly, parole boards will be given the ability to include non-disclosure as a factor in their decisions to grant parole. Correctional Service Canada will also be given discretion to use this as a factor in other forms of release.

The common thread in this legislation is the principle of judicial discretion. This legislation is a tool for judges to use when they deem it fit. At no point does this legislation force any official in the justice system to make a predetermined decision. If they choose not to implement these tools, their only requirement is to explain why.

I think we can all agree that victims' families deserve to know why decisions are being made.

I've also brought forward a number of common-sense amendments. There is an amendment to change the line item, because there are changes that require new lines in the Criminal Code. The other two are more substantive.

It has been brought to my attention that if an order of parole ineligibility is put in place before an appeal, there could be some question as to whether it would compromise a retrial. The second amendment allows a judge to stay the order until such time as an appeal can be concluded. This means that the legislation would not be enforced until an appeal is concluded. The third amendment seeks to empower judges to extend the period of parole ineligibility for offences carrying a minimum life sentence to up to 25 years. It is crucial to highlight that the threshold for applying these penalties at sentencing is incredibly high. A court must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender knows the whereabouts of their victims' remains and that they refuse to provide that information to persons in authority.

Finally, I want to say that it has been a pleasure serving with all of you on committee. I said earlier this year that if the 45th Parliament can be remembered for anything, it can be remembered for the actions this committee took to stand up for the rights of victims and their families.

This bill is meant to prioritize the rights of victims' families and is in keeping with the objectives of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I hope all members can support this legislation.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

Mr. McCann, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

Bret McCann As an Individual

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Bret McCann. I am the son of Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert, Alberta.

In July 2010 my parents left home in their motorhome on a trip to B.C. to visit my sister and her daughter. My dad was 78 and my mom was 77. They had been married for 58 years. They were kindred spirits and loved being together.

They never came home. Their burned-out motorhome was discovered near Edson, Alberta. Their SUV was later found abandoned. Despite extensive searches, their remains have never been found. Travis Vader was convicted of manslaughter in relation to their deaths. More than 16 years later, our family still does not know where our parents are.

That is why I am here to speak today about Bill C-236, the addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims’ families act, which our family has come to know as McCann's law. The words “continuing victimization” are important. The crime happened more than 16 years ago, but some of its consequences continue today. I still think about what happened to my parents and what their final moments may have been like, after spending almost six decades together. Their disappearance has affected the way I react when members of my family travel. I want to know when they leave and when they stop: “Please message me when you arrive safely.”

Our children lost their grandparents. Our grandchildren lost the opportunity to meet or really know their great-grandparents. We have never been able to recover my parents' remains, bury them properly and give them the dignity of a final resting place. To me, that is continuing victimization.

There is another aspect of this legislation that I believe is very important. One of the fundamental objectives of our correctional system is rehabilitation, preparing an offender to eventually return safely to society. In my view, genuine rehabilitation requires taking responsibility for what you have done and acknowledging the harm you have caused. Travis Vader has never done that. He has never acknowledged responsibility for my parents' deaths. I find it difficult to understand how he can truly take responsibility for what happened while continuing to withhold the information that would allow us to find their remains. To me, these things are inseparable. Acknowledging what happened to my parents must include telling authorities what happened to their bodies and where their remains can be found.

In our victim impact statement at Vader's full parole hearing in April 2025, we described our overwhelming grief and loss and the enduring harm our family continues to suffer, particularly from not knowing the final resting place of our parents. The Parole Board acknowledged the suffering in its decision to deny parole.

Bill C-236 recognizes that deliberately withholding information about the location of a victim's remains causes continuing harm and that this conduct should be relevant to decisions about sentencing and parole. Canada would not be alone in recognizing this principle. As Dane said, the U.K. has enacted legislation commonly known as Helen's law, and several Australian states have established “no body, no parole” laws. The details differ, but the principle is similar: Refusing to assist in locating a victim's remains must have consequences.

Bill C-236 provides a Canadian approach. It cannot force an offender to speak or guarantee that a family will recover their loved one's remains, but it can ensure that deliberately withholding that information has consequences within our justice system.

This legislation is not about revenge. Nothing Parliament does can bring my parents back, but Parliament can recognize that when someone continues to withhold information that could allow a family to recover their loved one's remains, the harm caused by that decision continues on and on.

There are other Canadian families living with this same terrible uncertainty. There are different crimes, different circumstances and different offenders, but there's the same question: Where are our loved ones? Our family has been asking that question for more than 16 years. We still hope that one day we will be able to bring my parents, Lyle and Marie, home, and give them the dignity they deserve. Until that day comes, we believe our justice system should recognize the continuing consequences of withholding the information that could make this possible.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

Thank you very much, Mr. McCann.

MP Cooper, go ahead for five minutes, please.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB

Mr. Chair, it's an honour to be here before this committee as the seconder of Bill C-236, known as McCann's law, which was introduced by a friend of mine, the member for Parkland. I want to commend the member, Mr. Lloyd, for his tireless, years-long advocacy for this proposed common-sense change to the law.

On July 3, 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann, an elderly couple from my home community of St. Albert, Alberta, set out on a road trip to British Columbia. Two days later, their motorhome was found on fire near Edson, Alberta. Lyle and Marie McCann had been murdered. Their murderer was convicted and is serving a life sentence.

Sixteen years later, the bodies of Lyle and Marie McCann have never been found. The murderer has callously refused to disclose the whereabouts of their remains, and disgustingly, he has taunted the McCann family. For 16 long years, Lyle and Marie McCann have been denied the dignity of a proper burial, and their family and friends have been left to wonder about their final resting place. They have been denied any sense of closure that comes with knowing.

I want to recognize the McCann family, including Lyle and Marie McCann's son, Bret McCann, whom I have gotten to know since I became the member of Parliament for St. Albert. He has shown courage, strength and determination to see justice done for his parents and for other victims. McCann's law seeks to remedy a gap in our justice system. As it stands, offenders can actively withhold the whereabouts of their victims' remains, weaponizing that silence to inflict ongoing psychological trauma on grieving families and denying them closure without consequence at sentencing or parole. The member of Parliament for Parkland has said in the past that withholding this information is tantamount to “an ongoing crime” without consequence.

In the case of the McCanns' murderer, despite being handed a life sentence, he is eligible to apply for parole and did apply for parole just last year. He can apply for parole without the Parole Board's being required to give any consideration to the fact that he refuses to disclose the whereabouts of Lyle and Marie McCann. That is wrong. That is unjust. That is where McCann's law comes in: It establishes a targeted, measured and common-sense framework for accountability.

First, at the sentencing phase, McCann's law would ensure that when an offender refuses to disclose the location of a victim's remains, it would be treated as a relevant factor. Judges would have the discretion to treat such a refusal as an aggravating factor. Additionally, it introduces a statutory mechanism whereby judges would have the discretion to order a longer parole ineligibility period.

At the parole phase, McCann's law amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that the ongoing refusal to disclose would be treated as a relevant factor in assessing an offender's suitability for parole and gives the parole board the discretion to deny parole on account of such a refusal.

I want to emphasize that McCann's law is carefully tailored. It would only apply post conviction, after a judge has decided an offender's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be entirely discretionary. It would be entirely left to the discretion of judges and parole authorities. McCann's law is consistent with established sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders.

I would add that consideration of an offender's refusal to disclose the location of the victim's remains is highly relevant and material to assessing an offender's suitability for parole, including having regard for their lack of rehabilitation and lack of remorse.

In short, McCann's law is targeted and measured. It promotes basic dignity. It promotes accountability on the part of offenders and, above all, it seeks to see that justice is done for the victims and their loved ones.

Simply put, McCann's law is common sense. I urge this committee to support it, and I welcome questions from members.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

Thank you, MP Cooper.

We'll go to Mr. Roebuck for five minutes, please.

Dr. Benjamin Roebuck Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime

Honourable Chair and members of the committee, I want to start by thanking Bret McCann for honouring his parents, Lyle and Marie, and for bringing this forward to Parliament. I want to thank MP Dane Lloyd for listening and taking action.

We're on the traditional, unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. The ongoing crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people reminds us of the devastating collective impact of unresolved loss on families and communities and the disproportionate impact of violence on indigenous peoples.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime is an independent federal resource for victims and survivors operating at arm's length from the Department of Justice. Our work is grounded in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, a quasi-constitutional law establishing rights to respect, timely justice, information, protection and participation and the right to seek restitution and to file a complaint when those rights are denied.

For families whose loved ones' remains have never been recovered, the harm does not end with a conviction or sentence. They are denied the opportunity to bring their loved one home, lay them to rest, hold ceremony and say goodbye.

When an offender has information that could help locate a victim's remains but deliberately refuses to disclose it, that refusal causes ongoing harm distinct from the homicide itself. It allows the offender to retain control of information of profound importance to the family, prolonging uncertainty and suffering.

Research on intimate partner femicide illustrates how concealment can extend coercive control beyond a woman's death, including over surviving family members.

International human rights law also recognizes that a state's failure to inform families of the location of a deceased person's body may constitute a separate violation of their human rights.

Bill C-236 offers a legislative response to continuing harm. Importantly, its provisions require a finding that an offender possesses information but refuses to provide it. Judicial discretion and independent parole decision-making remain important safeguards.

The legislation cannot guarantee disclosure or recovery of the victim's remains, but it increases the possibility.

I offer three recommendations to strengthen the implementation and protect victims' rights.

First, ensure transparency in parole decisions. I recommend amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the parole board to explain in its written reasons whether an offender's refusal to disclose the location of remains influenced its decision and how. This information should be accessible to registered victims through the existing decision registry.

Second, ensure victims can participate in revocation proceedings. I recommend amending proposed Criminal Code subsection 743.6(1.4) to require advance notice when a court is asked to revoke an order delaying parole eligibility and to provide affected victims with an opportunity to submit a victim statement before the court decides. Victims should have a voice in these proceedings without bearing responsibility for the outcome.

Third, ensure families are informed of developments in the search for remains. I recommend establishing a notification protocol between Correctional Service Canada and investigating police. When an offender provides information that leads to investigative action or recovery of remains, whenever possible, families should be informed by investigating authorities before those developments become public.

Implementation must be trauma-informed and culturally responsive. New information can bring hope, grief and renewed uncertainty, and families deserve compassionate and accurate communication.

For indigenous families, recovery and return of remains can hold profound cultural and spiritual significance, and I encourage the committee to hear directly from indigenous families, organizations and MMIWG2S+ advocates.

I also acknowledge families whose loved ones remain missing or whose cases are unresolved. Although Bill C-236 addresses circumstances following conviction, these families also deserve information, participation and culturally appropriate support in their pursuit of truth and justice.

To close, Bill C-236 advances objectives consistent with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including the right to respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. We need tools to protect families from further victimization when information is deliberately withheld.

For many families, justice is also about bringing a loved one home.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

Thank you very much, Mr. Roebuck.

We will now move to members' questions.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor for six minutes.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start with Mr. McCann.

I'm looking at you directly. I'm trying to look right at the camera. I want to speak to you directly on behalf of all parliamentarians and on my personal behalf, as someone who's fortunate enough to have both their parents still with them, parents who are around the age your parents were when they were taken. I want to give you my deepest condolences. I'm really sad that we have to be here, but I'm really happy that you are able to share your story in such a way. It's not easy to be revictimized and to relive trauma. You do that, I'm sure, every single day, but you generally do that privately. Today you're having to do it publicly. I thank you for that. I commend your courage and your composure in doing so.

I want to thank my colleagues MP Lloyd and MP Cooper for championing this bill. As somebody who's championed two private members' bills through the process, I know this isn't easy. They could have studied other things. When I say “studied”, I mean that they could have put forward other ideas, but they chose to put this forward to represent those who are generally voiceless. I thank them for that.

Dr. Roebuck, thank you for being here as well.

Mr. McCann, I can say this: As Conservatives, we will support this bill. I personally support this bill. I believe this bill is an absolute no-brainer. Have you had a chance to meet with any members of this committee apart from the Conservative MPs?

11:25 a.m.

As an Individual

Bret McCann

No, I haven't. I am familiar with Dane and Michael from years back. I sent my description of McCann's law and how this whole thing has impacted our family. I sent a document to all the committee members and invited them to meet with me. I got some emails back, acknowledging that I had asked them, but to answer your question directly, no, I haven't met with any of them.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

You've requested meetings with the MPs. I can't speak for anybody else. On behalf of the Bloc, we have Madame DeBellefeuille. On behalf of the Liberals, we have Ms. Sodhi, Madame Dandurand, Dr. Powlowski, Ms. Acan, Mr. Housefather on video and Dr. Ramsay. It may be prudent—frankly, I think it would behoove us on this committee—that before anybody makes a decision and before clause-by-clause, they meet with you, look you in the eye and hear what you have to say.

Would you be open to meeting with the members of the committee so that they can hear you out and they can tell you where they're coming at things from?

11:25 a.m.

As an Individual

Bret McCann

Absolutely. I would really like to do that. I'm in Australia, so there's a time zone issue, but I would really like to meet with all the committee members, if possible.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. McCann. I can't compel other members of the committee to meet with you, but what I can do is say this through the chair.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I exhort all members of this committee, before we get to clause-by-clause, to meet with Mr. McCann. Let's not forget that his parents were taken and that this law is in their name.

When it came to the private member's bill that came from my office, Bailey's law, I thought it was really important that people heard from the victims. We have 48 hours. Perhaps that time can be extended—who knows? It would behoove the members of this committee to meet with Mr. McCann.

I'll go one step further. Everybody here is going to have a chance to intervene, and by intervene I mean speak. I would invite the colleagues I just mentioned to take 10 seconds of their time and say whether they're prepared to meet with Mr. McCann. If they are, let's put it on the record. A what without a when is a never: That's something I like to say. Let's not make this a “never”. Let's get scheduling this here and now.

Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Cooper, we have only a minute here. One thing you mentioned was that other Commonwealth countries have put this type of law forward. Are we, frankly, behind the times on this?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

As I said, a number of Commonwealth countries that have very similar jurisprudence and protections—not only for the rights of victims, but also for the rights of those who have been convicted—have these laws on the books. This isn't something that we're setting a precedent for as a country. We are following in the footsteps of other Commonwealth countries with strong human rights legislation.

Thank you.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Cooper, do you have anything to add?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB

I would echo the comments made by Mr. Lloyd.

This is a very narrow, targeted bill that would require judges and parole authorities to take into consideration a very material fact, which is that someone who is convicted is withholding information on the remains of a victim. This is relevant and material, and it should be considered, albeit on an entirely discretionary basis.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

This would be after conviction—

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

I'm sorry, Mr. Caputo—

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB

It's post conviction.

The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos

I'm sorry. I have to cut you off.

We'll have Madame Dandurand for six minutes, please.

Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McCann, for your courage in joining us. You are going through an incredibly difficult situation, and you have my support, as well as that of all the members here. I think that's all I have to say on that. Frankly, you're very brave.

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for introducing this important bill. We must study it with the seriousness it deserves. To that end, I would like to ask a few questions about your approach, because you certainly put a lot of effort into it. We can see there was a lot of work done there. You've also held a lot of consultations.

One of the questions that came to mind when I saw your bill is why did you choose to propose a new aggravating circumstance rather than a new offence, for example? What motivated your choice?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

I believe in incrementalism. I felt that this bill had a number of factors that come into account, and using “an aggravating factor” would be an important step that could get broad support from across the political spectrum.

When I put this bill together, certainly, it could have been a separate offence. However, I wanted to ensure that I could build political support as broadly as possible, so I used “an aggravating factor”.

Thank you.