Debates of Nov. 21st, 2025

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would emphasize the sympathy that I think all members have for victims of this nature and their families. It is something we should all take very seriously, and I will expand on that shortly.

I am interested in the member opposite's thoughts in regard to judicial independence. Does he believe that judges do not take into consideration that someone is withholding an important thing, such as where a body could be found, in making a disposition?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, currently there is nothing that expressly requires judges or parole boards to consider these factors. There is nothing in our legislation that allows for judges to give an increased period of parole ineligibility when somebody is found to be withholding relevant information that could lead to the recovery of victims. I think these are novel powers that we would be giving to our justice system, novel powers that judges and parole boards would have the discretion to use as they see appropriate.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing this bill. I can assure him that it has the Bloc Québécois's support.

Here is my question. The bill would allow judges to consider a person's refusal to disclose the location of a murder victim's remains or body as an aggravating circumstance. However, my understanding of the bill is that if the judge does not consider this to be an aggravating circumstance, the judge must put that in writing and justify their decision to not take it into consideration.

Have I correctly understood the spirit of my colleague's bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly thank my colleague on the public safety committee and the Bloc Québécois for their indication of support for the legislation. The purpose of it is to provide accountability for families. It is always good, when we are talking about victims' families, to provide as much information as possible to explain the rationale and factors behind why decisions are made in our judicial system.

What I have sought to put forward is that when judges are choosing to not move forward with these powers, for whatever reasons, such as if they determine based on the facts of the case that they do not believe the killer has the material information, or they do not think it would be appropriate to put this power in, they would provide an explanation in writing so families could have some closure to understand why the powers would not be used in their family's case.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague for bringing the bill forward. As a matter of fact, I have stood in the House, over the last 10 years, dozens of times to speak to this very issue with respect to the high-profile case in my riding of Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer, who murdered Cynthia Maas, Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko and Loren Leslie. When he was sentenced in 2016, Justice Parrett said that this gentleman lacks any remorse and should not see the light of day, yet he has been moved from maximum security to medium security without any of the parents' knowledge. When I pressed Corrections Canada and the former public safety minister on it, they told me that it is not an exact science.

I applaud our hon. colleague for the bill, and I would like to offer one more chance for him to talk about the victims' families, because that is really whom we are here for today.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, something people have brought up to me and asked is whether it would really apply in a lot of cases. As I have outlined today, and as my hon. colleague outlined today, there are many cases where the legislation could be helpful in ensuring that killers who hide the remains of their victims' bodies are held accountable.

When I talk to the McCann family, and to all the families that have been involved in similar cases, I can see the trauma of not knowing and of wondering every day where their loved ones are. That ongoing trauma, I believe, is a crime. It is a crime that is not specifically recognized under the Criminal Code. There are no specific consequences for it, but it is a crime nonetheless, and the legislation seeks to create a tangible consequence for the people who would commit this crime against families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-236. I believe, at the end of the day, that all members of the House, and I would like to think all parliamentarians, can sympathize with the family members of victims in the situations being portrayed here this afternoon.

I suspect there are a number of very high-profile situations people can really relate to. The member himself, in introducing the legislation, referred to a situation that took place in my home province of Manitoba. It is something that I have been following for many years, which is the issue of murdered and missing indigenous girls and women. Back in 2010-11, I believe the number of people missing was well over 1,200, but some suggested it is 1,400.

One thing that people should be aware of is that we still have murdered and missing indigenous women and children today. It is occurring in our communities, and we do need to do more where we can. In big part, that means working with provincial jurisdictions, our different stakeholders, indigenous leaders and community members to ensure that women and girls feel safe in the communities they live in. We take that issue very seriously.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the circumstances that became a very hot political issue during the last provincial election in the province of Manitoba. There was a serial killer found out. I believe it was because there was a search of one of those steel garbage cans in an alley, and a victim's body part was discovered. I do not want to say the perpetrator's name, the serial killer. I do not want to associate any sort of fame, as negative and as horrific as it is, to the individual.

Having said that, as best I can tell, there were at least four victims. The courts might be able to give a bit more detail as I did not follow it in that kind of detail. There were four victims, and it was believed fairly confidently that the bodies were dumped in a landfill site just north of the city. That had an impact not only on the families but also on the community, and it became a major issue during the provincial election.

To the credit of Premier Wab Kinew, there was an allocation of financial resources, which was complemented by federal resources. I must say, those federal resources were provided right at the very beginning. There was an extensive search of the landfill site. It was quite encouraging that we were able to recover at least some of the remains, those of Ms. Harris and Ms. Myran, which allowed for a proper traditional burial and brought some closure not only to their families and friends but also to the community as a whole.

I think we all understand the importance of trying to support the identification and return of the remains of victims to family and friends. I would like to believe that is supported by all members, no matter what side of the House they might fall on.

I asked a question of the member opposite in regard to judicial independence and, in handing out a sentence, what sort of disposition would be given by a judge. We have to recognize that judges have the opportunity today to consider everything, in essence, that is being proposed by the member opposite. If I was to provide a few very succinct comments on it, I would indicate that with the legislation, we would potentially create contradictions and shorter periods of parole ineligibility for first- and second-degree murder. That would result in judges having a choice to pick a shorter parole ineligibility period for these offences.

It would not necessarily have the effect of making parole ineligibility periods longer, as indicated. There is no guarantee of that, even with the legislation that is being proposed. As I indicated, when we think of related factors that can be and already are considered during sentencing, the court already has the power to delay parole eligibility, including for manslaughter.

I have always been a big advocate for the Charter of Rights. I can recall the signing of it. I was actually alive when it was being signed. I value the rights and freedoms we all have. I am not too sure that the legislation that is being proposed would actually be charter-compliant. I do not know whether in fact the member has an opinion on that issue. If I had a follow-up question, that would be what I would ask the member. There will be two hours of debate on the subject matter, but maybe in his concluding remarks, the member could provide some further thoughts on that issue.

The other issue I have highlighted in the questions, to expand on that, is that there has been a great deal of concern from some members of the House who do not necessarily recognize the full role our judges play in the courtroom. I am not convinced by what the member tries to give the impression of: that victims are not already served well through the current process. Looking at the legislation, comparing it to the charter and looking at the duplication, we see that there is no guarantee that we would be looking at extended periods of time if a body is not disclosed.

I have a great number of reservations with respect to the legislation. I would encourage the member to look at some of the other comments that have been made, even by him when he indicated he was not being political.

The Conservatives have made reference to the levels of our prisons. We have some prisons where there is a higher level of security versus a lower level of security. I believe we will find that there were child murderers who were transferred from maximum-security prisons to minimum-security prisons even when the Conservatives were in power. I am not quite sure why it was necessary to make reference to that today.

Interestingly enough, there is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, which deals with crimes by repeat violent offenders and others. It would have an impact in regard to the length of parole hearings and with regard to sentencing. I believe there are actually 80 different clauses that would be reformed. Bill C-14 is going to committee today. At the same time that it would be providing for stronger, healthier and safer communities, it would reinforce the fact that there are roles for the different levels of government to play.

I realize that the member has put a great deal of effort into the legislation. I would hope that in his concluding remarks he will address the two specific points I have raised. They are valid points, and for the government to support the legislation, the member would have to provide a justification for doing so, on those two points in particular.

At the end of the day, I believe that we have to do what we can for the families, friends and communities of victims. There will be another hour of debate before the legislation goes to committee, and we will have to wait and see what happens in the vote. However, at this stage, I do not see the government's supporting the legislation as it is.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to begin my speech on Bill C-236 by pointing out that Quebec's early childhood week is drawing to a close. Yesterday was National Child Day.

It seems only fitting to share that today, because it is a day for acknowledging that children are people and citizens in their own right who are entitled to freedom, safety and a life without violence. We must never forget that children are not only our future, but also our present, and we need to do everything in our power to take them into account, especially in our political decisions.

I thought it seemed appropriate to highlight that today, considering that many children in Quebec, in Canada and around the world are experiencing violence at this very moment. We need to reaffirm that children have rights. I would like to thank the community group ESPACE Suroît for sponsoring this awareness week in my riding.

We are here today to debate Bill C‑236, introduced by my colleague from Parkland, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. His bill seeks to amend laws such as the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

Today we begin the second reading debate on this bill, which is part of a trend, a series of bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the parliamentary session. It may be worth reminding members that, this week, we debated Bill C‑221, which aims to support victims' families and keep them informed of developments regarding the offender's sentence. Bill C‑220 was also introduced, which also seeks to amend “the Criminal Code to provide that, in imposing a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen, a court must not take into consideration the offender's immigration status in Canada”. That bill was introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who sits on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and has been speaking on Bill C‑12.

We also debated Bill C‑225, which was introduced by another member who sits on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This bill responds to the sadly growing phenomenon of domestic violence.

The government also introduced Bill C-14, which essentially covers six main points: It provides clarification on the principle of restraint, introduces a reverse onus for interim release, imposes tougher bail conditions, introduces sentencing measures, eliminates conditional sentences for sexual assault and makes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It is fair to say that, since the beginning of this Parliament, the legislative agenda has had a strong focus on crime, victims of violent offenders and bail. We have been very busy. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I see that we will have a lot of work to do when it comes to hearing from witnesses on the various bills that will be passed at second reading and sent to committee.

I would like to thank my colleague from Parkland, who introduced this bill. He was motivated to introduce this bill because it responds to a real need. Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert, Alberta, disappeared 14 years ago. Their family cannot get closure because the murderer has never confessed to his crime. What is more, he refuses to reveal the location of Lyle and Marie McCann's remains. That is why this bill is called McCann's law.

I want to talk in more detail about the changes the bill would make to the Criminal Code.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and as a reason to delay parole the fact that a person who is convicted of certain offences refuses to provide persons in authority with information respecting the location of bodies or remains. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act to add that fact as a consideration in the making of certain decisions under those Acts.

The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act are an important aspect of the bill.

In fact, the purpose of this bill is to consider the victims and the families who cannot grieve their loss because the location of their loved one's remains is unknown to them. Families, like the McCann family, suffer from not knowing the whereabouts of their loved one's remains, and many never get closure, as the bill's preamble explains.

The Bloc Québécois is aware of this reality and believes that the families of victims have the right to know the location of their loved one's remains. We consider it important that judges who choose to ignore this aggravating factor be required to provide a written explanation to help family members understand their decision.

In the past, little was said about victims' rights. In recent weeks, however, we have debated a number of bills that address them. This fall, we have talked at length about victims' rights only to conclude that victims also have rights, such as the right to information. They have a right to receive information during the parole process. They have a right to understand why the person who murdered their loved one can get parole after so many years. They have a right to understand and participate in the process. The bill introduced by my colleague from Parkland is another example of Criminal Code amendments designed to keep victims better informed.

The bill states that the court must be satisfied that the offender knows the location of the body. There may be extenuating circumstances. There was a case in Quebec where the person eventually revealed the location, but it was the St. Lawrence River. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to recover a body from the St. Lawrence River. The family of the victim, Lyne Massicotte, was never really able to mourn her death. After repeated questioning, the family finally found out that the murderer had thrown the body into the St. Lawrence. This brought them no comfort, as they could not arrange a funeral without her body. This is a very difficult situation for anyone to go through, and we understand how hard it must be for all the victims' families and loved ones.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill at second reading so we can hear from witnesses and experts in committee. We want them to explain what is being done in Australia, England and the United States. We want to know how other countries, with which we have many international relations, are addressing this new phenomenon, namely, the location of victims' bodies remaining undisclosed. Is it similar to what my colleague's bill proposes? We want to hear these testimonies.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitating prisoners. We want to ensure that this particular aggravating factor is introduced, but without it being punitive or coercive. We want judges to take aggravating factors into account and uphold their decision.

Right now, many families, who may even be listening to us, are experiencing grief that they cannot process because they do not know where their loved one's remains are. My colleague's bill aims to give families and loved ones the opportunity to obtain this information. If the accused provides the information, it could perhaps allow them to obtain parole a little sooner. This could allow loved ones to get emotional closure.

We believe that loved ones deserve better and that thorough work in committee will shed the necessary light on this issue, for the sake of the victims and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-236 as its seconder. Known as McCann's law, it is in memory of the late Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert.

Lyle and Marie were a happily married, retired couple who had their lives cut short when they were brutally murdered in July 2010. For 15 long years, their remains have not been found. For 15 long years, the murderer has kept the whereabouts of their remains a secret.

Fortunately, that murderer was charged, tried and convicted and is serving a life sentence, but unfortunately, and frankly outrageously, this murderer is eligible for parole in less than 15 years. He took their lives. He murdered two people and he is already eligible for parole. He applied last year and he can do so without the Parole Board being required to give any regard to the fact that he refuses to disclose the whereabouts of the remains of Lyle and Marie McCann.

In light of that, McCann's law stands for one simple underlying principle: no body, no parole. That is right. That is just. That is fair. It gives judges, parole boards and correctional authorities the discretion, and I want to emphasize the word discretion, to hold murderers who refuse to disclose, and who hide material information about, the whereabouts of their victims' remains accountable under the law. This bill, McCann's law, does so in several ways.

First, it gives judges the discretion to treat a refusal to provide this information as an aggravating factor when fashioning a sentence. If a judge determines it not appropriate to treat it as an aggravating factor, they would simply be required to state their reasons for doing so to provide for some level of transparency and accountability.

Second, a judge would have the discretion to order the Parole Board to expressly give consideration to such a refusal in determining the appropriateness and suitability of the release of such murderers. It would also follow that correctional authorities would have the discretion in such cases to deny day parole and temporary absences for such murderers.

I was disappointed with the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader when he suggested that somehow this bill is not charter-compliant. This bill could not be any more charter-compliant. I would submit it is airtight when it comes to its compliance with the charter, because it is entirely discretionary.

It would not impose, mandate or bind judges in any way; it simply provides that judges have one more tool at their disposal having regard for the particular facts and circumstances and the particular offender, nothing more, nothing less. Then, based upon that determination, parole boards and correctional authorities would also be able to exercise similar discretion. Again, they would be required to take into consideration something that is very material: a refusal on the part of a murderer to disclose the whereabouts of their victims' remains.

I want to commend my friend and colleague, the member for Parkland, for his tireless leadership in championing this legislation. He introduced this bill when he got to this place in the 42nd Parliament, as well as in the 43rd Parliament, in the 44th Parliament and now in the 45th Parliament.

As members can appreciate, it is difficult to get private members' bills to be debated and voted on, given that the House spends so much of its time on government business. Finally, in the 45th Parliament, McCann's law is here. It is being debated. It will be voted on. I certainly hope it is passed.

Most especially, I want to pay tribute to and pay my respects to the McCann family, who have gone through so much over these years, having lost a mother, a father and grandparents at the hands of a cold-blooded murderer.

I have gotten to know Bret McCann and his wife, Mary-Ann. They came to me as their member of Parliament to ask me to advocate for the repeal of so-called zombie laws. In the trial of the murderer, the trial judge, in error, applied an unconstitutional section of the Criminal Code that had been struck down but was nonetheless on the books, a zombie law. We advocated for the repeal of such laws and, to the credit of the government, it brought forward legislation that removed the zombie laws that were on the books at that time.

I know that the member for Parkland first met Bret and Mary-Anne at that time, when he was working in my office, which in turn led to where we are today, with the introduction of McCann's law.

Why McCann's law? Very simply, it is to remedy an injustice in our justice system that is illustrated by what has happened to the murderer of Lyle and Marie McCann. This is a murderer who took the lives of two innocent, elderly victims. They were on a road trip in the summer of 2010, heading to British Columbia. They stopped near Peers, Alberta. They pulled over and spent some time in a relatively remote area. He took advantage of their vulnerability in that particular place, at that particular time. He robbed them, murdered them and disposed of their bodies.

Instead of taking any sense of responsibility, instead of showing any sense of remorse, he has cruelly and callously kept the whereabouts of their remains a secret, denying Lyle and Marie McCann a proper burial, depriving the family of Lyle and Marie McCann some comfort in knowing the whereabouts of their remains, their parents and grandparents, depriving the family of some degree of the closure that comes with knowing.

In being silent, this killer is not only cruel and callous, but, as the member for Parkland said, his actions constitute a crime. It is an ongoing, perpetual crime of retraumatizing the victim's family.

The member across the way said that family members take some comfort in the system as it currently stands. I can say with certainty that Bret McCann takes no comfort in the fact that the killer, the murderer, is eligible for parole, that he applied for parole last year and can do so year after year after year for the rest of his life or that the parole board does not have to consider the fact that this cruel, callous murderer, day in and day out, taunts Bret McCann and the entire McCann family by refusing to come clean about their whereabouts. Hence, we have McCann's law.

This is right. This is just. It is needed. It is targeted. It is discretionary. It will go a long way to protect the interests of victims in our criminal justice system. For Bret McCann, for the McCann family and for all the victims' families who are going through what the McCanns have gone through, let us do the common-sense thing and pass McCann's law.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-236, addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims' families act. The short title of this bill refers to the continuing victimization of homicide victims.

The bill would make an offender's failure to disclose the location of victims' remains a consideration in parole decisions. I want to assure the member for Parkland, and indeed all my parliamentary colleagues, that this government takes its responsibilities toward victims seriously. We know the families of homicide victims have suffered unspeakable tragedy and we stand with them. They deserve our compassion, respect and support.

I am going to use my time to outline the ways victims are already supported by the government. For example, in 2015, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which enshrined victims' rights into law. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides the statutory rights to information, to protection, to participation and seek restitution.

On a practical level, this means that victims have the right to receive information about the justice system and about the services and programs available to them. Victims may also obtain specific information on the progress of a case, including information on the investigation, prosecution and sentencing, as well as the conditional release process of the person who harmed them and how the sentence is administered. Importantly, victims have the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process. They also have the right to have reasonable and necessary protection from intimidation and retaliation.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to convey their views and have those views considered. Victims may participate in meaningful ways by attending Parole Board hearings and submitting or presenting victim statements about the physical, emotional or financial impact that offences have had on their lives for consideration at any parole review. The Parole Board of Canada can then take all of this information into account when making its decision.

Victims can also propose specific conditions for consideration in the board's decision-making. For example, geographic conditions or no contact orders can be imposed if an offender is granted release. Victims can also access a photo of the person who has harmed them prior to release. If the Parole Board of Canada does not impose any conditions requested by victims, they are also eligible to obtain written reasons.

Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims of crime are legally entitled to receive information on progress made by inmates toward meeting the objectives of their correctional plan. They can also name a representative to receive information on their behalf. Additionally, victims have the right to have the court consider making a restitution order and have an unpaid restitution order enforced through a civil court. At sentencing, victims are allowed to submit a victim impact statement describing the losses they have suffered because of the crime committed against them.

Further, courts need to consider ordering restitution for all offences. An offender's ability to pay restitution is one of the factors a court will consider, but it does not prevent a court from making the order. A court must consider restitution as part of the totality of the sentence.

The factors considered when determining an appropriate sentence include the seriousness of the offence, any payments already made by the offender and the impact of the crime on the victim. There is a range of losses that can be covered by restitution, including damaged or lost property due to the crime, physical injury or psychological harm, costs related to moving out of the offender's household, costs that victims of identity theft incur to re-establish their identity and correct their credit history, and costs that victims of the non-consensual publication of an intimate image incur to have an image removed from the Internet.

The Government of Canada remains committed to empowering victims of crime with resources such as the national office for victims. It is an important resource for victims that improves how they experience federal corrections and conditional release programs.

The office provides a victim lens on correctional policy development as well as developing information products for disseminating to victims and the general public. These information products are aimed at increasing awareness so victims can better understand and navigate the process related to federal correctional and conditional release. It also engages with victims, their advocates and other stakeholders to ensure that their voices are heard in the development of the office's services and supports.

Finally, the national office for victims considers the unique needs of victims in vulnerable communities, including indigenous peoples, in all of its work. The process around correctional and conditional release can be confusing, complicated and overwhelming for victims, but services like the national office for victims can help victims understand their rights.

It is important I mention that there is a complaint mechanism. If a victim feels that their rights under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights have been infringed or denied by a federal agency or a department, they can make these complaints directly to the relevant department or agency to have issues resolved directly and in a timely manner. However, should they be unsatisfied with the outcome of the internal complaint process, they may also contact the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.

The Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime operates independently and at arm's length from the Government of Canada. While the ombudsperson does not advocate on behalf of individual victims or provide legal advice, they can make recommendations to the federal government in response to the issues raised, provide information or refer complaints to victim services.

The government will continue to stand in support of victims of crime. No system is perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague the member for Parkland for his excellent work, dedication and passion over eight years to help make the lives of victims and their families better.

I would also like to thank our Bloc Québécois colleagues for their support.

I would ask that all members make this a non-partisan issue and support what we know, as indicated earlier, would withstand a test of charter compliance. I ask that all members support the bill, which would make lives better for families like the McCanns and for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)