Debates of March 26th, 2026

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request that it be passed on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to see the clock at 5:42 p.m., so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 21, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians expect their government to take a firm and unambiguous stance against violent crime.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-236, the addressing the continuing victimization of homicide victims' families act. I acknowledge the intentions of the hon. member for Parkland, as well as his advocacy for victims of crime. In this spirit, we support sending Bill C-236 to committee for further study.

Despite this, in its current form, the bill falls short of delivering the decisive, concrete measures needed to confront violent offenders and to protect victims and their families. We look forward to working collaboratively to improve the bill to better the safety of all Canadians.

I want to assure the member and Canadians that our government takes the rights of victims and the parole process seriously. Bill C-236 would make an offender's failure to disclose the location of victims' remains a consideration in sentencing and parole decisions. The bill would also require courts to order the parole ineligibility period to be one-half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied that the default period outlined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the CCRA, is sufficient.

Victims and their families deserve strong, reliable protections. The intent of Bill C-236 is understandable: to support victims' families and hold offenders accountable for withholding the location of victims' remains. However, we do not believe that the bill in its current form, without changes, will meaningfully improve our criminal justice system or make our communities safer.

I will explain. What I mean is that this bill does not enhance public safety outcomes, because the mechanism it is seeking to target, sentencing and parole, is already in place and allows for consideration in sentencing and parole decisions of non-disclosure. Judges are already able to consider any factor surrounding the offence as aggravated when determining sentences and parole eligibility, including the failure to disclose the location of victims' remains. Similarly, in certain circumstances, judges can already delay parole eligibility for the length of time proposed in the bill, which is the lesser of 10 years or half the sentence.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Bill C-236 that would preclude consideration of relevant factors by correctional decision-makers, such as the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. Of additional concern is the fact that the proposed amendments to the parole regime would create confusion and contradiction regarding when an offender may be eligible for parole. This is likely unintended, but the bill would not have the effect of making these parole ineligibility periods longer, nor would it achieve the objective of addressing the continued victimization of homicide victims' families.

Specifically, the bill would create contradictory and shorter periods of parole ineligibility for first- and second-degree murder, resulting in judges' having the choice to pick a shorter parole ineligibility period for these offences. This would mean that if an offender is being reintegrated into communities, they would spend less time under supervised release by Correctional Service Canada, which helps bridge the gap between offenders' being in an institution and reintegrating into society.

With this, I want to take a moment to talk about parole and, specifically, the decision-making process, the rights and supports available for victims, and how parole contributes to the protection of society. The majority of offenders are serving fixed-length sentences. This means they will eventually be released back into the community once their sentence ends. Evidence shows that parole contributes to public safety by helping offenders reintegrate into society through a gradual, structured and supported release.

Parole decisions are made by the Parole Board of Canada, which is an independent administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from the government and free from outside influence. The decisions of the Parole Board, for which public safety is the primary consideration, are based on a thorough risk assessment, which considers all relevant and available information. To be clear, this includes information from victims of crime, the police, courts, Crown attorneys, mental health professionals, correctional authorities and private agencies.

Importantly, the nature and gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender are also factors considered in parole decisions. While parole is meant to be a bridge between incarceration and safe integration into the community, I must stress that just because an offender is eligible for parole does not mean the parole is granted. If the Parole Board of Canada deems an offender poses a risk to public safety, parole is denied.

Even when an offender is granted parole, they are not released into our communities without oversight. They remain under the legal custody of Correctional Service Canada and are subject to strict supervision, mandatory conditions and continuous monitoring by community parole officers. Parole is structured, and it is an enforceable tool that ensures offenders are held accountable throughout their reintegration. There are immediate consequences if they fail to comply. If, at any time, offenders breach their conditions, their release may be revoked by the Parole Board of Canada and they can be returned to an institution.

Importantly, the parole process also establishes a role for victims, where their input and concerns are factors that are considered in conditional release decision-making. To be clear, under the law, the definition of a victim includes not only those harmed directly, but also the family of deceased victims. Any victim may register to receive information from the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. They may also provide information to the Parole Board of Canada at any time related to safety concerns, the offender's risk to reoffend and/or the effect the crime has had on them, their family or the community.

Victims can also choose to provide a statement detailing the impact the offence has had on them, and they may attend parole hearings as observers. Victims may present a written statement to the board members that outlines the continuing impact of the offence, as well as any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose. They can request that special conditions be considered for an offender's release. While victims have a role in the criminal justice system, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that their voices continue to be heard and its policies are responsive to their concerns while seeking to not overburden or retraumatize.

In 2015, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. This provides victims of crime with the right to information, protection, participation and seeking restitution. The government will always take the protection of these rights seriously and will look for opportunities to enhance and build upon them. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, while the government supports this bill being sent to committee, we are always prepared to support other measures that would meaningfully and concretely support victims of crime and deliver public safety results for all Canadians.

An example of this is when our government introduced Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which proposes measures to enhance victim safety, participation and access to information by addressing gaps in how and when victims are informed about an offender's status and parole decisions. Proximity to a victim would be included as a factor in institution selection, and victims would have access to information about why parole hearings were postponed.

The government has also tabled Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This legislation would target crimes committed by violent and repeat offenders, and would include amendments to the Criminal Code that would establish reverse onus bail for major crimes; allow consecutive sentencing for multiple crimes, meaning longer times behind bars; impose harsher penalties for organized retail theft; and restrict conditional sentences for a number of sexual offences.

In parallel to these legislative pieces, the government is continuing its work with provinces, territories and local enforcement to address the root causes of crime. We are acting decisively to keep our communities safe by investing in violence prevention programs and cracking down on cross-border smuggling of guns, fentanyl and other drugs. This is an opportunity for all of us to stand against crime and support victims of crime.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Natural Resources.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is important for me to express my full support tonight for “Le communautaire à boutte” movement. Before becoming an MP, I served as executive director of the Hautes-Laurentides community development corporation for over five years. I worked closely with more than 50 organizations that provide services that government agencies cannot. These are dedicated people. I commend the organizations that have been around for 40 years. I will name a few: La Griffe d'Alpha, Maison Lyse-Beauchamp for the homeless, L'Arche du Nord, La Petite Mission, and Maison de la Famille du Nord. There are so many of them and they are part of our social fabric. Our regions need them, and this is a unique model that Quebec has developed over the decades. I stand with them wholeheartedly in ensuring that services for the vulnerable are not interrupted in the future.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-236. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill because we want to study it in committee. It is a Conservative Party bill that is at second reading stage. I should mention, however, that the bill may be unnecessary. Let me explain. The case cited by the Conservative Party to justify this bill shows that the Parole Board of Canada already takes account of refusals to disclose the location of a victim's body and refusals to admit guilt.

In fact, Australia since 2015, the United Kingdom since 2019 and the United States since 2021 have had similar legislation in some of their federated states, although studies suggest that these laws are unnecessary and even violate certain rights of inmates, in addition to transforming the goal of the parole system from rehabilitation to punishment.

As is always the case when the Conservative Party introduces bills related to the justice system, the Conservatives' vision of justice is not justice in the noble sense of the word. All too often, the official opposition wants Canada's justice system to be about revenge.

Not only that, but the parole system already takes certain criteria into account when making its decisions. Once again, the Conservative Party wants the legislative branch to play a role in the administration of justice. Once again, the Conservative Party wants to severely restrict the discretion of the members of the Parole Board of Canada. Once again, the party of law and order wants to control the law.

Nevertheless, setting aside partisan considerations, I want to say that, despite these reservations, I recognize that victims' loved ones deserve answers and that this bill deserves to be studied in committee. This actually allows me to point out that parliamentary committee work is fundamental to demystifying complex issues. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon just talked about this in the context of Bill C-8.

It is easy to introduce bills to pander to one's base, but the bill has to pass the smell test and that is what parliamentary committees are for. It is an opportunity to hear from academics and experts on the issues at hand. In this case, that will include families, loved ones, and the Parole Board of Canada, to learn in detail exactly how things work in practice. We need to challenge assumptions and sit down to ensure that the system is working as it should.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill, because this matter deserves to be addressed with all the seriousness, diligence, and impartiality that the issue of justice demands.

Just two weeks ago, when I rose here to speak to a Conservative Party justice bill, I said that the justice system is under attack throughout the west. It is a tactic employed by the far right and various fringe groups. I have said this on several occasions since becoming a member of Parliament, and that concerns me.

Using the justice system and judges as political tools is a road to nowhere, except to inflate dubious theories. Do we want an American-style system, with all the problems that come with it, or do we want a justice system worthy of the name? I believe and hope that we can all agree on the answer.

Populism is on the rise all over the world. It is a troubling trend. As a member of Parliament, I have made it my mission to stand as a bulwark against populism and to always focus on the facts. I urge my colleagues from all parties to do the same. Let us send this bill to committee and have it studied thoroughly to ensure that it meets our legal principles.

That is why I am saying here today that we need to look at the facts and send the bill to committee.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-236, or McCann's law.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Parkland for his relentless work in the mission for justice and closure and his support for those victims and their families who have not received a proper burial, which is something that all humans deserve.

I acknowledge the spirit of Lyle and Marie McCann, their family and their never-ending journey to justice and closure. They, among many, have experienced the harshest crimes in our society still to this day.

It is well known that indigenous women and girls also experience a disproportionate, unfair portion of these harsh crimes. Indigenous women and girls make up a small percentage of Canada's population, or roughly 2% to 4%, yet they represent a vastly disproportionate number of victims. Between 2009 and 2021, they accounted for 5% to 7% of all homicide victims. They are six times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women, and even more alarming, they are up to 12 times more likely to go missing or be murdered. These are not just numbers. These are mothers, daughters, sisters and loved ones whose absences leave permanent holes in families and communities across the country. The national inquiry heard from over 2,300 witnesses, including survivors and their families, whose courage in sharing their truths laid bare serious gaps in policing, justice and social supports.

As Conservatives, we believe the first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens, especially the most vulnerable. This means ensuring that indigenous women and girls are safe in their homes, in their communities and across this country. It means supporting practical solutions, better coordination between law enforcement agencies, stronger accountability and improved access to social supports to ensure that families are never left in the dark when tragedy strikes. It also means respecting the calls for justice, not as symbolic gestures but as actionable steps that demand measurable results.

That is what McCann's law would do. It would help take an actionable, meaningful step toward those families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls who live without closure. While women are disproportionately represented in the murders in this country, this bill would affect all ages and people who are victims.

Just this past year, the murder of Samuel Bird captured the hearts and minds of first nations indigenous peoples and all Canadians around the Edmonton, Alberta, region. Samuel went missing, and his family was desperate, searching an area larger than the city of Toronto for his remains. It was during this search, in looking for actionable, tangible ways to support Samuel's family, that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta took notice of this bill and lent its support. Of course, its priority at the time was the immediate search for Samuel, but the foresight of the chiefs had them looking into a hard future and toward their treaty partner, the Crown and the federal government, for support.

The chiefs took notice of McCann's law, and the 40-plus chiefs across Treaties 6, 7 and 8 passed a resolution that stated:

We support strengthening accountability by requiring offenders convicted of serious crimes to disclose information about the location of victims' remains before parole or sentencing consideration, recognizing its potential to bring closure and healing to families of [missing and murdered indigenous peoples].

These are the chiefs of the families back home in Treaties 6, 7 and 8, and I am proud of my leaders back home for supporting the action that this bill would take. This bill originated in and was written in their home territory of Treaty 6.

Ultimately, in this instance, Samuel's family was granted the small, gracious closure that we all hope for, for all victims: His body was found.

In our culture, our elders teach us that those who are not sent to the spirit world through a proper funeral, protocols and ceremony cannot become our future ancestors to guide us from the spirit world in this life. To this day, there are still victims' families out there who have not received closure. Justice in Canada must put victims first. Circumstances surrounding murderers' paths through the justice system exposes serious flaws in our system, flaws that have left far too many Canadian families re-victimized by a system that often prioritizes offenders over those they harm.

At the heart of this bill is critical reform ensuring that individuals convicted of the most serious violent crimes face tougher sentences and a stronger parole system when they continue to pose a clear risk to public safety. Canadians expect a justice system that is fair but also firm. They expect consequences for murder. They expect that when someone commits murder, they will not have an easy path through their time in the prison system at the victim's expense.

We have seen too many instances of killers considered for parole too early. We have seen families forced to relive the trauma at repeated parole hearings, year after year, uncertain whether justice will truly be served. This is not justice. It is a failure of the system. Bill C-236 would address this by allowing for longer periods between parole hearings in the most serious cases.

This is about giving victims and their families peace of mind. It is about ensuring that dangerous individuals are given the harshest sentences they deserve under Canadian law. It is about restoring confidence in our justice system. From a Conservative perspective, this is straightforward.

First, public safety must always come first. A government's primary duty is to protect its citizens. When someone has demonstrated a pattern of violent behaviour, the risks they pose cannot be minimized or ignored. Strengthening parole criteria in those circumstances is not excessive. It is responsible.

Second, accountability matters. Criminal acts, especially violent ones, must carry real consequences. If sentences are too lenient or parole is granted and considered too easily, we undermine the deterrence effects of our laws. We send the wrong message not only to offenders but to Canadians, who expect the justice system to uphold order and safety.

Third, we must stand with victims. Too often in this country, victims and their families feel like an afterthought. They are asked to attend parole hearings to recount their pain and fight for the continued incarceration of the very individuals who shattered their lives. Bill C-236 recognizes that reality. Limiting unnecessary parole hearings and strengthening denial provisions would reduce the emotional toll placed on families and tell them they would not have to keep reliving this trauma year after year.

Rehabilitation is an important goal, but it cannot come at the expense of safety and justice for victims. Where genuine rehabilitation has occurred, our system already has mechanisms to recognize it, but where it has not, the risk remains high.

Parole must be strongly considered to be denied. Canadians understand this balance. They know compassion for victims and accountability for offenders are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bill C-236 strikes that balance. It would ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes face consequences that reflect the gravity of their actions. It would ensure that parole is treated not as an entitlement but as a privilege that must be earned, and it would ensure that victims are not forgotten in the process.

Our justice system must be worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. That trust is eroded when violent offenders are considered for release too soon. It is eroded when families feel unheard. It is eroded when accountability is replaced with leniency.

Supporting Bill C-236 is an opportunity to begin restoring trust in our justice system. As Conservatives, we always stand for safer communities, meaningful consequences for crime and a justice system that puts victims first.

As we enter the break as parliamentarians and go into Easter, too many families out there have an empty seat at their table. This bill, while not filling that spot at their table, would certainly help bring closure for those families.

I support this bill. Help us pass it through this House.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C-236, introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Parkland. It is a bill that speaks to something fundamental, not just in our justice system but also in our shared humanity. It is about dignity and accountability, and above all it is about justice for victims and their families.

For most Canadians, when a loved one passes, there is a process. There is mourning, a funeral and a place to visit, to remember and to grieve, but for far too many families, that process is stolen from them. It is stolen by individuals who commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and then choose to withhold the very information that would allow families to lay their loved ones to rest.

Bill C-236 seeks to address this very injustice. It would do so in a targeted, thoughtful and charter-compliant way. It would not remove judicial discretion or impose automatic penalties, and it would not upend the principles of our justice system. Instead, the bill would do something both simple and profoundly important. It would ensure that when an offender refuses to disclose the location of a victim's remains, that refusal would be treated as a serious and relevant factor in sentencing, at parole and in conditional release decisions.

The bill recognizes ongoing harm, because the truth is this: When an offender withholds the location of a victim's remains, the crime does not end at conviction; it continues. It continues every single day that a family is denied answers and every single day that a parent, a child or a sibling is left wondering, “Where are they?”

We need only to look at the case that inspired the bill. In 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann were brutally murdered. Their son, Bret, has lived with unimaginable grief, but that grief has been compounded and even intensified because the animal responsible has refused to say where their bodies are. To this day, the McCann family has had no grave to visit, no proper funeral and no true closure. As Bret McCann himself said, by withholding that information, the offender continues to revictimize the family. That is exactly right. That is not silence; it is ongoing harm, yet under our current system, there is no explicit requirement for judges or parole boards to consider that refusal.

While the McCann case is a powerful and tragic example, it is certainly not an isolated one. Across this country, there have been multiple cases where families have been left without answers, and where offenders, even after conviction, refused to disclose the location of remains. In each of these cases, the pain does not end with the trial or sentencing. It continues indefinitely, because the truth is being deliberately withheld. The bill recognizes that this is not a one-off injustice but a recurring gap in our legal system that demands a legislative response. Let me be very clear about what the legislation would do.

At sentencing, a judge would be required to consider an offender's refusal to disclose the location as an aggravating factor. If the judge chooses not to consider it, they must explain why. For serious sentences, those exceeding two years to life, the court may order that full parole eligibility be delayed until half the sentence has been served, or 10 years, whichever is less. Importantly, that order can be revisited if the offender chooses to co-operate. This would create something that does not currently exist: a meaningful incentive to do the right thing, to tell the truth, to provide answers and to allow families to grieve.

The bill would also strengthen the role of the Parole Board. It would make clear that ongoing refusal to disclose the location of remains can be grounds to deny parole.

It would apply as well to temporary absences, including unescorted absences and even certain humanitarian requests, because it is entirely reasonable to ask, “If an offender continues to withhold critical information about a victim, have they truly demonstrated rehabilitation, and have they truly accepted responsibility?” The bill seeks to recognize the consequences of continued deliberate non-cooperation, and it would ensure that our justice system is equipped to respond to that reality.

Some may argue that these factors are already considered informally, but if that is the case, then there should be no hesitation in codifying them. If we already believe this matters, then we should say so clearly in law. The bill has been carefully drafted to respect the charter. It would preserve discretion and avoid automatic penalties, and it would fit squarely within existing legal principles. This is not a sweeping reform. It is not a broad overhaul of sentencing law. It is a targeted, measured response to a very specific and very real problem, and yes, it might apply to only a small number of cases each year, but for those families, those parents, those children and those loved ones, it would mean everything.

Conservatives often speak in this House about putting victims first. We hear that from time to time from the Liberals. This is an opportunity for all of us to do exactly that, to acknowledge victims' pain, validate their experience and take a concrete step to support them. I would urge all members of the House to look beyond politics on this issue, to consider the families who are still waiting for answers, to consider the dignity of those who have been lost, and to consider the very clear message we send if we fail to act.

Justice is not only about what happens in a courtroom. It is about whether families are able to move forward with dignity, with answers, and most importantly, with the truth. When an offender chooses to withhold a location, they are not simply remaining silent. They are prolonging the suffering, and they are extending the harm of their crime day after day, year after year.

The bill would ensure that our justice system recognizes that reality. It is measured, it is charter-compliant, and it is rooted in a simple principle: that victims and their families matter. We have an opportunity to correct a clear and painful gap in our legal system. I urge all members of the House, on all sides, to stand with victims' families, to stand for accountability and to support Bill C-236.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in support of Bill C-236. I want to take a moment to commend my colleague from Parkland not only for his excellent work on this bill, but also for the way that he approached its development. I know that he went out of his way to talk to victims, victims' rights groups and law enforcement to really make this an evidence-based, common-sense approach to a real problem that is happening in Canada. That approach shows the best of what we can be in this place. For that reason, among many others, I am proud to say that I will be supporting this bill, and I know that many others will be as well.

The bill would make a common-sense, long-overdue change to ensure, when a person is convicted of a crime, such as murder or manslaughter, and the offender refuses to provide information about the location of the victim's body or remains, that would be an aggravating factor at sentencing that could lead to a longer or harsher sentence, a reason to delay parole eligibility and a factor considered in decisions about conditional release, temporary absences or other corrections decisions.

My other colleagues in this place have made very good technical arguments about why this law is in alignment with the charter, but I want to make some arguments about why I think it is necessary.

In this place, we all have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, and we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws rectify deficiencies when we see that people are not being protected. There have been several high-profile cases that have been highlighted in colleagues' speeches speaking to this bill. My colleague from Parkland, after speaking to many victims, has also highlighted some of their cases in which a family has endured an unimaginable situation where their loved ones' lives were taken by somebody else and the perpetrator has been convicted of that crime, but the family does not have closure because the remains of their loved one have not been found. We know, through a lot of psychological research and reports, as well as just common sense, that to not have that closure, that ability to say goodbye and put somebody to rest, which is a very important part of a lot of spiritual practices and faiths, is a situation that continues to revictimize the family. We think about the victimization of people when crimes are perpetrated. In this instance, without the location of the remains or of the body of the victim of a murder, their loved ones, their friends and their family, become ongoing victims of crime.

My colleague from Parkland has also highlighted the fact that there are often trigger points for the family throughout the sentence of an offender in these cases. For example, if the offender comes up for parole and there is a parole eligibility issue, all of a sudden the fact that those remains have never been found is once again thrust into the forefront of the family's lives or their friends' lives. To me, that is an ongoing crime. It is an ongoing problem that we in this place should seek to rectify.

There is also something that did not come up in debate that I want to touch on a bit too. There is the dignity that we afford to somebody when they have passed. There is a dignity that somebody who has passed away is afforded, through many faith traditions and many secular traditions as well. To me, to allow an offender who has been convicted of murder to, for example, be eligible for parole when that dignity has not been afforded to their victim is not just.

What this bill would do is give the judiciary and law enforcement officials more tools to ensure that dignity is provided to the victim, but also that the ongoing victimization of their friends and family does not occur, so there can be a sense of closure and peace. Beyond the technicalities of what my colleague presented in this bill, he is also proposing to colleagues in this place that we look at justice a bit differently. To me, he has really thought about what justice means. I really support this bill for that, and because of the compassion, care and kindness he has inserted into its heart and into how he has modelled it.

I also want to address some colleagues, as I have heard them in debate make some reference to this being an American law. This legislation actually has its roots in the Commonwealth tradition. There are similar terms to the “no body, no parole” laws in Australia, as well as in the U.K. In the U.K., the legislation that went through our peer parliament was called Helen's Law. When our peers in those places were arguing about it, they debated the need to have judges, parole boards and correctional authorities. They needed more tools to address the injustice of withheld information.

Again, we must go back to the concept of giving additional justice and looking at the holistic situation of the impacts of crime. When speaking about murder, we should have no disagreement in this place that we should be looking for ways to correct and give as much justice in those situations as possible. The concept of the injustice of withheld information means that perpetrators should not be rewarded by being granted parole, for example, when we know that justice is still to be served.

Some debate came up about how this affects only a small number of cases in Canada. To me, there are a lot of logical fallacies involved in that argument. Justice should apply to all. A small number of cases should not be just waved away. There is still a requirement for justice there. If justice is not served in those cases, then it actually normalizes not having justice in those situations, which we can often see leading to recidivism, escalation of crime, or more instances happening. We in this place should be doing our job and holding the government to account to know when there are clear instances of justice not being served, so that we close the loopholes in our laws that should be common sense, in order to make sure that the principle that underlies the foundation of the Canadian national identity, the identity of our country, which is respect for the rule of law and justice when justice is required to be served, is actually embedded.

I hope this law quickly passes for all the reasons I have laid out, the compassionate reasons and the reasons for justice, but also because this precedent exists in Commonwealth peer countries as well. I want to extend a great degree of compassion and empathy to those victims who have worked with my colleague, the member for Parkland, and shared their stories. I hope they get closure by our quickly passing this bill as well.

I would just close by saying there are a lot of deficiencies in Canada's ability to deliver justice. We have seen the government over the last decade err on the side of protecting offenders and criminals, as opposed to providing justice for victims and preventing crime by ensuring that commensurate punishment is levelled to people who break the societal norms that are established in our criminal law. I think that needs to end.

There are a lot of people in the country who are looking beyond the chaos they are seeing in a lot of our streets and are starting to question whether or not we here in this place, as well as the government, understand the concept of justice. That is why Conservatives have put forward many justice bills recently, which, unfortunately, the government has voted against. However, this is a common-sense one.

I really hope that the amount of care, effort and research that my colleague from Parkland has put into the bill is supported by other members of the House, that the bill passes quickly and that we can rest assured that we have done our job in the House to stand for the principle of justice and be empathetic and compassionate to the victims of these crimes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Parkland has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to this legislation that I brought forward.

I want to start by thanking the McCann family, my colleagues of the House and all the supporters of the legislation and the victims' families.

This has been a nine-year journey for me. I was first inspired to bring forward the legislation before I was elected. I was inspired by the model put forward in Australia, and I was also inspired by advocates in the United Kingdom fighting for justice through Helen's law, so I want to thank them for inspiring me.

The legislation is named after Lyle and Marie McCann. Their killer remains incarcerated, but he is currently eligible for parole. He has refused to disclose where he hid the remains of his victims. The victim's family, the McCanns, has never been able to hold a proper funeral or have closure.

I believe that the continued withholding of that information by convicted offenders is an ongoing crime against the victims and their families. It is a crime that currently has no consequences. The possibility that people could be released on parole and be walking our streets while knowing where they hid their victims' remains, or that they could pass by their victims' families on the streets while they still know that information, is abhorrent to Canadians.

I want to address some of the criticism brought forward with respect to the legislation, and I do appreciate the opportunity to address it. I think it is unmerited. The fact is that the Parole Board does not need to consider an offender's refusal to co-operate and/or admit to their crime as a factor in parole hearings.

I would like to quote directly from the transcript of the killer in this case's parole hearing in December 2024. The Parole Board clearly stated that accountability and co-operation is not a requirement to be granted parole. Ryan Nash, a member of the Parole Board, stated to the killer, “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.” I think this summarizes why the legislation is so needed.

In debate today, there were some other criticisms brought forward. My colleagues claimed that the legislation could result in killers' receiving a shorter period of parole ineligibility than is currently prescribed by law. That is simply not the case. In Canada, first-degree murder already requires that there be a period of parole ineligibility of 25 years, and in second-degree murder cases, a period of parole ineligibility of 10 to 25 years. In the McCann case, as well as others, the killer was not found guilty of first- or second-degree murder but was found guilty of manslaughter and was eligible for parole after a period of seven years.

In cases where someone is found to be withholding crucial information about the remains of their victims but is not convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the legislation could be utilized by the judicial system and parole boards to increase the period of parole ineligibility and to deny parole.

I want to assure all members of the House that there is nothing in the legislation that would dictate to judges, parole boards or correctional officials what they must do. They would retain full discretion to utilize the tools that Parliament provides them in the legislation as they find appropriate.

I know that the people who work in our criminal justice system, our judges, parole board members and correctional officials, are professionals and may have reasons why they may or may not consider the co-operation to find a victim's remains as a factor in their decision-making. For example, if they have a reasonable belief that the remains of victims will never be found, of course it would not be appropriate to use this legislation in that case.

The only requirement the legislation would impose is that our judicial system actors consider this very important factor, and I think that is the least we can do for victims' families. It would also require that, in cases where they choose not to utilize these tools, they provide reasons for not utilizing them. Again, I think that providing those reasons to victims' families is the least we can do.

I want to read a letter from Bret McCann, the son of Lyle and Marie:

“On July 3, 2010, my parents, Lyle and Marie McCann, were murdered. The individual responsible was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, yet he has never acknowledged his crime nor disclosed the location of my parents' remains. As a result, our family has been denied the most basic elements of closure: truth, accountability, and the ability to lay our loved ones to rest.

“Bill C-236 addresses a profound gap in Canada's criminal justice system. Meaningful rehabilitation and any credible assessment of parole eligibility must require offenders to accept responsibility for their crimes. In cases such as ours, the responsibility includes providing information about the whereabouts of victims' remains. Without such accountability, parole processes risk compounding the harm suffered by victims' families.

“Comparable legislation has already been adopted in other Commonwealth countries, including Australia's ‘No Body, No Parole’ laws and the United Kingdom's Helen's Law. These measures recognize that compassion for victims and public confidence in the justice system demand more than silence from convicted offenders—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize. The hon. member is way over time.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Therefore, I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Natural Resources

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to seek answers on the government's natural resources policies.

Residents in my community are watching the war in Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which are blamed for the spike in prices at the pump. Just this week, my daughter shared with me that gas prices for her in Vancouver had reached over two dollars per litre. It is not just the Lower Mainland. The average cost of regular gas across Canada reached $1.73 per litre on Tuesday.

This is not the fault of the Liberal government, but what is its responsibility is the decade-long failure to provide consistent continental access to our Canadian alternative to a global market, while raising our gas prices at home through the fuel standard tax. Let us not forget, it is official government policy to increase fuel costs by 13¢ per litre for gasoline and 16¢ per litre for diesel by 2030. No nation with such abundant resources should have to pay so much more for it.

Meanwhile, allies seeking Canadian energy have been poorly served by the Liberal government. Big promises now do not disguise its past failure to deliver. Promises to build a pipeline to Pacific tidewater in the future, which is already delayed, may I add, do not disguise the loss of Coastal Gateway, which would have been completed by now had it not been killed on the Liberals' watch.

Strong words of support from Quebec Liberal MPs for our energy products today do not disguise the fact that they were the same ones cheering the death of energy east. If the Liberals opposite would like to champion the expansion of Trans Mountain, let it not be forgotten that it was a private project that became so entangled in Liberal regulations they had to buy it and build it with public tax dollars at a significant cost overrun. I voted for the Liberals' major projects bills to see energy projects built faster, but after the Prime Minister's first year in office, they have not approved a single project.

One of Canada's largest oil producers, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, recently announced that it is halting expansion plans in Canada. The company cited the industrial carbon tax and federal regulatory barriers as creating an economic burden for a long-term growth investment in energy products. At a time of rising gas prices at home and around the world, we cannot let Canadian energy be left on the shelf. Canadians need relief at the pump, and the world needs Canada. They are banging at our door for our energy.

This is why Conservatives call for the immediate introduction and passage of an emergency energy supply plan to accelerate approval of LNG sites through the major project powers and guarantee a maximum six-month approval time for major energy infrastructure projects. We have no time to waste. Middle East energy powers are saying a continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz could see oil prices surging to $150 a barrel and gas prices four times what they were before the conflict.

Will the government bring forward and approve our plan to lower costs for Canadians and build energy infrastructure faster?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, during the last election, we committed to making Canada a clean and a conventional energy superpower. Canadians elected us on that promise, and we are already delivering on that mandate. The projects referred to the Major Projects Office represent hundreds of billions of dollars in direct investment and tens of thousands of jobs. In this time of energy uncertainty, Canada is a beacon of stability, rising to meet the moment and increasing our energy exports, including through the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, which, as the member noted, was built by Liberals who knew the importance of diversifying our energy exports and ensuring we can get our products to market.

The member said that the world needs Canada, and on that we agree. When the International Energy Agency recently called on us to bring more oil to market to help stabilize prices, Canada answered that call. We committed to supply an additional 23.6 million barrels over the coming months, but while Canadian energy production reached a record high last year, the Alberta MOU is meant to unlock the full potential of Canada's energy sector, not just in conventional energy but clean energy as well. Conservatives like to talk about the pipeline in the MOU, but I will note that the Alberta government said it is still working on it and expects to submit a plan by June of this year.

What the Conservatives fail to recognize is that the MOU is about much more than just a potential pipeline. It is comprehensive and touches on everything from electricity interties to nuclear energy and artificial intelligence. Our allies are watching this progress. They see it in the pipeline we are optimizing to deal with both our present circumstances by diversifying our exports and in the projects that are forward-looking.

Canadians want us to move faster, build smarter and think bigger. They want energy that is reliable, responsible and made in Canada for Canadians, built with strong environmental standards and meaningful partnership with indigenous peoples. That is the work under way. That is the path ahead.

I will end with this: We build national projects the Canadian way, which is by listening, working with indigenous partners and making sure that environmental standards guide every step. This is how we build things that last. There has been a lot of attention on what comes next, and Alberta said it expects to bring forward a new pipeline proposal this summer. We look forward to seeing that proposal when it is ready. Our job is to ensure that it can be reviewed in a way that respects indigenous rights, protects the environment and brings provinces together, co-operating from a position of strength. If we keep that team Canada spirit, there is no limit on what we can build and where Canada can lead.