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.