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.