Public Safety Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

I have another question.

If your bill were to pass, who would be responsible for determining whether someone, a criminal, is hiding information? It is possible they don't know they're doing so. How do we distinguish bad faith from a lie?

Under this bill, who is responsible for determining whether it's really someone hiding information or someone who doesn't know they're doing so? How do we know whether it is an aggravating factor or not?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

To be clear, the Crown will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender has the information and is withholding it. It would then be up to a judge's discretion, based on those facts, to determine whether the tools in this legislation were to be used.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Are there any sections in the Criminal Code that allow a judge to take this type of factor into account, or would this nuance in the Criminal Code be something completely new?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

This is a novel approach in the Criminal Code.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

You made a comparison with Australia. In Canada, we regularly see issues related to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As far as I know, Australia doesn't have anything equivalent to our charter. What challenges do you anticipate from the provisions in this bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you for that great question.

A number of charter implications could come out of this legislation. For example, this question has been brought up to me: Does this impact the right to remain silent or the right not to incriminate yourself? It is a critical protection we have in society for those who have been accused of a crime that they are not compelled to incriminate themselves. That is why this legislation does not have any force and effect until after somebody has been convicted of a crime and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be withholding information that is relevant to the location of the victims' remains.

Now, there is an amendment that I put forward to further clarify this, in that if an appeal is launched on a case, the judge will have the ability to issue a stay so as not to compromise any sort of appeal. The force of this legislation would not take effect until after an appeal is concluded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Dandurand.

We now go to Mrs. DeBellefeuille for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to sincerely thank our colleague Mr. Lloyd. It is always quite moving to see someone defend a bill whose passage they have long hoped for, so his perseverance is to be commended.

Mr. McCann, as my colleague Ms. Dandurand pointed out, it's very moving to have you with us and to hear what you've been through. It must be extremely painful whenever you talk about the loss of your parents, especially in these circumstances. You can't properly grieve, because you don't know where their bodies are.

In your opening remarks, you talked about the continuing victimization. It's something we don't talk enough about. I'd like you to tell us more. How do you explain it? What does it look like in your day-to-day life?

[Bret McCann]

There are really two aspects to this in terms of the impact on us of not knowing where my parents' remains are. The first aspect is that we don't know exactly what happened to my parents in their final moments. After spending almost six decades together we can only imagine what they went through. For me there is sort of a nightmarish aspect to it: Who died first, and what did the other one see? That's part of not knowing what happened, and part of not knowing what happened is what happened to their remains. It's very tied together to me as I don't know what happened.

We don't know what happened at that final moment, and we don't know what happened to their remains. Another aspect to this is that, and I know that the term “closure” is overused, but it is real that one needs to—I don't quite know how to explain this—not close the book, but put it on the shelf and move on. You never really do if you don't.... A funeral is important, a burial is important, so it's difficult to describe what it means to have no final resting place for my parents.

I hope I've answered your question.

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

Thank you, Mr. McCann.

I feel it's important to give you the floor, so you can convey everything you've been through and continue to go through. It will help the members of the committee understand how important this bill is.

In your opening statement, Mr. McCann, you said you felt that your victim impact statement at the first parole board hearing influenced the board's decision to deny your parents' killer parole.

Do you feel that Bill C‑236 will add something, or do you feel that the board did its job and that the system worked in your case?

[Bret McCann]

We've been to two hearings. One was for day parole application in December 2024, which was rejected. The other was a full parole hearing in April of last year. We got the decision from the Parole Board. In there, it specifically stated—I'm paraphrasing here—that Vader's refusal to identify or say where the remains are was an indicator that he was not accepting responsibility and that acceptance of responsibility was a critical factor in the decision to deny his application for parole.

I'm trying to say that it was more than my impression. This was stated in the judgment.

I also have the impression, and this is just my opinion, that this was their decision or their analysis, but it would be important to codify this and have it specifically stated that this is a requirement for parole. That needs to be examined by the parole board, and it needs to make a decision on those criteria. It also needs to explain why it rejected an application or why not, based on the criteria. It's important that we codify this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

It's now Ms. Kirkland's turn for five minutes.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here.

It's always an emotional time, when these bills come forward and we talk about victims' families, revictimization and how difficult that is for families as we move on.

I really appreciate your testimony, Mr. McCann, and would welcome an opportunity to connect with you after this meeting so that we can speak one-on-one. There are things we hear in this committee that are very polished and put together, and we're trying to hold ourselves together, but meeting with you one-on-one is vital. I appreciate Mr. Caputo's mentioning that. I hope that the members of the committee will consider that before we move forward, because there are things that can come out when you're speaking one-on-one that would not necessarily come out in a hearing or committee-type setting like this, which can be very difficult. I'm happy to do that.

I want to clarify something, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Cooper—whoever would like to answer—with regard to this bill. Just to clarify for every member on the committee, nothing in this bill forces the parole board to say no to parole if they haven't disclosed information on remains. However, it does codify that they must consider this as an aggravating factor. They also must give us a reason for why they didn't.

Could you just clarify that, so everyone understands that we are doing this while keeping the charter in mind?

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

Precisely. This would be post conviction, at the sentencing phase, when a judge would have discretion to apply a longer parole ineligibility period, for example, and if an offender applied for parole. Yes, it would be strictly post conviction, after a judge had made a determination beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender had material information and was withholding it with respect to the whereabouts of the victim.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I appreciated your terminology, Mr. Cooper, when you said the bill was “carefully tailored”. In that vein, I think about the missing and murdered indigenous women Mr. Roebuck mentioned. We know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by violence and disappearances.

Mr. Lloyd, I know you spoke previously in the House about the murders of four indigenous women in Winnipeg, including Ashlee Christine Shingoose, whose remains have not been recovered. How could Bill C-236 help address the continuing suffering experienced by the indigenous community?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you for that question.

I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up a recent tragic case in my area. Young Samuel Bird was murdered, and his remains were hidden outside of Stony Plain, where I live. Fortunately for his family, the remains were recovered. However, the police did not arrest anyone until those remains were recovered.

That being said, this legislation, as in cases that you mentioned and in that case, provides an incentive for offenders to take an important step in their rehabilitation, as well as to take an important step in providing closure for grieving families. By providing this sort of incentive, the hope is that convicted killers, whom this bill would apply to, see that their ongoing victimization of the family is a separate crime, and that they seek restitution in some small way by giving those families the dignity of a funeral.

I think it's very important across all cultures, indigenous cultures and other cultures. Funerals have existed for tens of thousands of years in human societies. It is precisely because it is so important, as a grieving mechanism for families, that they have that opportunity.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Lloyd, you proposed a couple of amendments to the bill, and they're worth looking at. The first one is to include a stay of provision for cases going through the appeal process. Can you speak to how this improves the legislation?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

There have been Supreme Court precedents that, of course, state that the right not to incriminate yourself wanes after a conviction has been secured. However, there was a concern that, if an appeal were to be mounted and the provisions of this legislation came into force before an appeal could be concluded, in some way it could, in itself, be seen as a violation of that right. Therefore, we've put forward an amendment to give judges the ability to stay the provisions until after an appeal has been concluded, in order to ensure that there are no violations of charter rights.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Kirkland.

We'll go to MP Housefather for five minutes, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bret, thank you so much for joining us today. I think that all of us are very moved, not only by your testimony today but also by what your family has been through.

You and I first met in 2018, when Michael brought you before the House of Commons justice committee to testify on the “zombie provisions” that were being removed by Bill C-75. You told us the story of how Travis Vader had been convicted under provisions that had already been deemed unconstitutional, causing your family no end of grief.

I want to open up the conversation that you had already started with my colleague. I would note to Mr. Caputo that, when you had written to us, I had written you back and said that I was going to ask the clerk to make sure you were included. I was sure that Dane had already included you, but I wanted you to be able to talk to the committee to tell us your story.

I think one thing we all know is that, no matter how hard a death is.... My best friend's mother, Gitta Frazer, died a couple of days ago. We had the funeral yesterday. Having a funeral and being able to go visit your loved ones at a cemetery or have their ashes gives some type of closure and comfort, I think, to a family. Can you talk to what your family was deprived of by not knowing where your parents' remains are?

[Bret McCann]

Thanks, Anthony.

I'm not sure this is relevant to your question, but I recall when my sister first called us. She was waiting at the airport for my parents to come, and they never showed up. There was a period of several weeks when we had no idea. We, and especially Mary-Ann, my wife, organized searches in the Edson area. People I worked with came and helped, and we did searches in our area.

That's where all the angst began. We didn't know what happened to them. Then when the RCMP found out that someone had done something and started the whole investigation process and so on, we knew that my parents were gone, but we did not know what happened to them. We had no idea what happened. We still don't, and that bothers me so much.

I mentioned briefly in my opening statement that I'm almost obsessive if my children are travelling somewhere with their family. I need to know when they're going somewhere. I tell them to keep me updated and to let me know when they get there, and if they don't, I become very stressed about it. If I don't know if they're there or not, I worry about it. It all brings back not knowing what happened to my parents.

I'm trying to answer your question, Anthony. I'm not sure I am, but—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You're doing it pretty eloquently. It's okay.

If you had the ability to visit your parents in a cemetery or to have their ashes with you, you would feel some type of closeness that I think you're missing right now.

[Bret McCann]

Exactly. If I knew where they were and I knew what had happened to them, it wouldn't bring them back, but it would answer so many questions and take off so much.... Uncertainty causes so much stress.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand.

Dane, could you talk about what other foreign countries do that is similar to this legislation?