Summary#

This bill changes sentencing and parole rules when a person convicted of an offence linked to a death refuses to tell authorities where the body or remains are. It makes that refusal an aggravating factor at sentencing and lets courts and parole officials delay or deny release based on that refusal. It amends the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

• Refusal to share location information becomes an aggravating factor judges must consider at sentencing; judges must give reasons if they choose not to apply it (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718 “Aggravating circumstance — body or remains”).
• Courts can order a longer wait before full parole: one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court decides normal rules already meet denunciation and deterrence (Bill, s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Courts must revoke that parole-delay order if the offender later provides the information or the circumstances change (Bill, s. 743.6(1.4)).
• Parole boards may refuse parole or unescorted temporary absences based on the offender’s refusal to provide location information (Bill, CCRA ss. 102(2), 116(1.1)).
• Corrections and parole decision-makers must consider any court order made under the new rule, along with other case information (Bill, CCRA ss. 4(a), 101(a)).
• Provincial temporary absence decisions may also be refused on the same basis (Bill, Prisons and Reformatories Act s. 7.3(3)).

What it means for you#

• Households (families of victims)

  • The justice system can put added pressure on offenders to disclose the location of remains by increasing sentence severity or delaying parole if they refuse (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718; s. 743.6(1.3)).
  • Parole boards may deny parole or unescorted temporary absences to offenders who refuse to share this information (Bill, CCRA ss. 102(2), 116(1.1)).

• Convicted persons (offences related to a death)

  • If a judge is satisfied you have location information and you refuse to provide it, your sentence can be treated more harshly due to an aggravating factor; if the judge declines to apply it, they must give reasons (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718).
  • If your sentence is 2 years or more, the court must order a longer period before you are eligible for full parole—one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less—unless the court finds normal eligibility is enough for denunciation and deterrence (Bill, s. 743.6(1.3)).
  • If you later provide the information or circumstances change, the court must revoke the parole-delay order (Bill, s. 743.6(1.4)).
  • Parole and temporary-absence decisions can be refused on the basis of your refusal to disclose (Bill, CCRA ss. 102(2), 116(1.1); Prisons and Reformatories Act s. 7.3(3)).

• Judges, prosecutors, defence counsel

  • Judges must consider the refusal as an aggravating factor and give reasons if they choose not to give it effect (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718).
  • Judges have constrained discretion to impose the longer parole ineligibility period, with an express “unless” clause tied to denunciation and deterrence (Bill, s. 743.6(1.3)).
  • No special standard of proof is stated in the bill; the court must be “satisfied” the offender has the information and refuses to provide it (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718; s. 743.6(1.3)).

• Corrections and parole boards (federal and provincial)

  • Must consider any order under s. 743.6(1.3) and other case information when carrying out the sentence and deciding parole (Bill, CCRA ss. 4(a), 101(a)).
  • May deny parole and certain absences based on refusal to disclose the location of remains (Bill, CCRA ss. 102(2), 116(1.1); Prisons and Reformatories Act s. 7.3(3)).

• Timing

  • The bill contains no delayed coming-into-force clause; absent another provision, changes would take effect on Royal Assent (Bill text: no coming-into-force clause).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or new fees in the bill text (Bill, all parts).
• Potential impacts on custody time, parole workloads, and hearing volumes are not costed. Data unavailable.
• Administrative updates for courts, Corrections, and parole boards are not costed. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves accountability and helps families: creates clear legal consequences when offenders withhold the location of remains, which may encourage disclosure (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718; s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Strengthens denunciation and deterrence: the bill states these are the goals of both the aggravating factor and the parole-delay order (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718(1); s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Adds targeted, reviewable pressure: the parole-delay order must be revoked if the offender later provides the information or circumstances change (Bill, s. 743.6(1.4)).
• Preserves judicial discretion: courts can decline to extend parole ineligibility if normal rules adequately denounce and deter; judges must give reasons when not applying the aggravating factor (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718(2); s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Aligns decision-making across the system: requires corrections and parole officials to consider the court’s order and allows parole boards to refuse parole or absences on this ground (Bill, CCRA ss. 4(a), 101(a), 102(2), 116(1.1)).

Opponents' View#

• Risk to fair process and rights: punishes refusal to speak, which may be seen as pressuring self-incrimination or undermining the right to silence; the bill does not define how the court decides an offender “has information” (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718; s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Potential error and inequity: people who truly do not know the location could face harsher sentences or delayed parole if a court is nonetheless “satisfied” they do (Bill, Criminal Code new s. 718; s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Incentive for false information: offenders might provide unreliable leads to seek sentence or parole benefits, creating false hope and resource costs for investigations. Data unavailable.
• Ambiguous interaction with existing life-sentence rules: the bill applies “including” to life sentences and operates “despite” CCRA s. 120, but does not explain how it fits with established murder parole ineligibility periods set elsewhere in law (Bill, s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Corrections and fiscal impact: longer parole ineligibility and more parole refusals may increase time in custody and administrative workload; no fiscal analysis is provided. Data unavailable.