Parole Delays for Withholding Body Location

Summary#

This bill changes sentencing and parole rules for people convicted of an offence connected to someone’s death. If a court or parole authority is satisfied the person knows where the body or remains are but refuses to tell, that refusal can lead to tougher sentencing and delayed or denied parole. The bill applies at both the federal and provincial levels.

• Adds refusal to disclose a body’s location as an aggravating factor at sentencing; judges must explain if they choose not to apply it (new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04).
• Lets courts order longer parole ineligibility: one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless normal rules are enough; the order can be revoked if the person later cooperates (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.3)–(1.4)).
• Requires parole decision‑makers to consider any such court order and allows them to refuse parole when satisfied the person is withholding information (Corrections and Conditional Release Act ss. 4(a), 101(a), 102(2)).
• Allows refusal of unescorted temporary absences on the same basis at the federal level (CCRA s. 116(1.1)) and in provincial/territorial systems (Prisons and Reformatories Act s. 7.3(3)).

What it means for you#

• Households (families of victims)

  • Courts and parole boards will place added weight on whether an offender is withholding information about a loved one’s remains. This is intended to encourage disclosure and reduce ongoing harm (Preamble; new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04; CCRA s. 102(2)).

• People convicted of an offence in relation to a death

  • Sentencing: If the court is satisfied you know the location of the body or remains and refuse to tell persons in authority, that refusal counts against you as an aggravating factor. If the judge finds the factor applies but does not use it, the judge must state reasons (new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04).
  • Parole ineligibility: The court must order you to serve one half of your sentence, or 10 years, whichever is less, before full parole, unless the court decides normal parole rules are enough given the case and your circumstances (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.3)).
  • Change of circumstances: If you later provide the information and the court is satisfied the reason for the order has ended, the court must revoke the parole‑delay order (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.4)).
  • Parole decisions: The Parole Board may refuse parole or unescorted temporary absences if it is satisfied you are withholding such information (CCRA ss. 102(2), 116(1.1)). Provincial/territorial authorities may refuse temporary absences on the same basis (PRA s. 7.3(3)).

• Parole boards and corrections officials

  • Must consider any court order made under Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.3) and all other relevant information when making release decisions (CCRA ss. 4(a), 101(a)).
  • Gain explicit discretion to refuse parole and temporary absences when satisfied the offender is withholding information (CCRA ss. 102(2), 116(1.1); PRA s. 7.3(3)).

• Courts

  • Must treat refusal to disclose as an aggravating factor when satisfied the offender has the information, and must give reasons if deciding not to apply it (new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04).
  • Must set the longer parole ineligibility period in qualifying cases, unless satisfied normal eligibility rules are adequate for denunciation and deterrence (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.3)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations or new fees in the bill (Bill text).
• Potential fiscal effects (not quantified in the bill or a fiscal note):
  • Longer time before parole for some offenders could increase custody costs for federal and provincial/territorial systems (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.3)). Data unavailable.
  • Additional assessment workload for courts and parole boards to determine whether the offender “has information” and is refusing. Data unavailable.
• Official fiscal note: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Enhances denunciation and deterrence by making refusal to disclose remains an aggravating factor and by allowing delayed parole eligibility (new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04; s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Addresses “continuing victimization” of families by creating consequences intended to encourage disclosure (Preamble; new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04; CCRA s. 102(2)).
• Provides clear tools and transparency: judges must explain if they do not apply the aggravating factor; parole boards are directed to consider relevant orders and information (new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04; CCRA ss. 4(a), 101(a)).
• Builds in an incentive to cooperate later: courts must revoke the parole‑delay order if the offender provides the information and circumstances change (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.4)).
• Aligns with existing sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence and is stated to be consistent with the Charter (Preamble).

Opponents' View#

• Risk of unfairness if an offender genuinely does not know the location of remains; yet a court that is “satisfied” the offender has information must impose longer parole ineligibility unless it finds normal rules adequate (Criminal Code s. 743.6(1.3)).
• Evidentiary challenge: determining whether someone “has information” may rely on inferences, which could lead to inconsistent or contested decisions by courts and parole boards (new provision after Criminal Code s. 718.04; CCRA s. 102(2)).
• Potential to incentivize false or misleading information about locations to seek parole or relaxed conditions, diverting investigative resources. Data unavailable.
• May increase incarceration time before parole for some offenders, raising correctional costs without proven public safety gains. Data unavailable.
• Legal risk: although the Preamble asserts Charter consistency, creating consequences for refusing to provide information could face constitutional challenge; outcomes are uncertain (Preamble).