Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Status
Defeated, as of May 1, 2024
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-351.
Summary
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.
Similar bills
C-342 (current session)
An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders)
Elsewhere
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-351s:
C-351 (2017)
An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act and the Excise Act, 2001 (importation)
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below.
Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-351 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, mandating that inmates designated as dangerous offenders or convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder be classified and confined in maximum security penitentiaries for the duration of their sentence. The bill aims to prevent the transfer of such offenders to lower security facilities, ensuring they remain in maximum security. It is intended to prioritize public safety and the concerns of victims' families by limiting the possibility of reduced restrictions or privileges for these high-risk individuals.
Conservative
Bill targets maximum security: Bill C-351 aims to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, mandating that inmates deemed dangerous offenders or convicted of multiple first-degree murders be classified as maximum security and confined accordingly.
Bernardo's transfer spurred action: The bill was prompted by the transfer of serial killer Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison, a decision that sparked public outrage and revictimized the families involved. Conservatives aim to rectify what they see as a failure of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach.
Opposes Liberal's Bill C-83: The Conservatives argue that Bill C-83, passed by the Liberal government, prioritizes the comfort of criminals over the safety and concerns of victims. The bill facilitates transfers to less restrictive environments, enabling transfers like Bernardo's.
Victims over criminals: The Conservative party stated that they prioritize the interests of victims over criminals, advocating for stricter measures for dangerous offenders and mass murderers. They believe the justice system should focus on punishing criminals and protecting the public.
NDP
Opposes bill as flawed: The NDP is concerned with the bill's use of a flawed process within correctional services, particularly the definition of “dangerous offender”, which they say needs to be fully investigated and reformed.
Systemic racism: The NDP emphasizes the overrepresentation of Indigenous people among those designated as dangerous offenders, with Indigenous offenders being disproportionately harmed and more likely to receive this designation compared to non-Indigenous offenders committing the same crimes.
Focus on rehabilitation: The NDP advocates for rehabilitation, drawing comparisons to successful approaches in Scandinavian countries like Norway, which have reduced recidivism rates through community-based correctional facilities and a focus on reintegration, while cautioning against a purely punitive approach.
Victim-centered approach: The NDP argues that the bill is not victim-centered and calls for justice strategies that prioritize the safety, respect, and needs of victims and survivors of crime.
Bloc
Concerns about the bill: The Bloc Québécois believes the bill, which removes discretion from Correctional Service of Canada officers to change the security classification of dangerous offenders, could hinder rehabilitation efforts. They worry that without the possibility of reduced security classification, inmates may lose motivation to rehabilitate.
Supports victim's rights: The Bloc Québécois stands with victims and society, emphasizing that the justice system should aim to build a safer society for everyone. They believe the focus should be on rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is key: The Bloc Québécois stresses the importance of rehabilitation, expressing faith in humanity and society's ability to help individuals reintegrate. They argue that most prisoners will eventually be released, so rehabilitation is essential for public safety.
Against political interference: The Bloc Québécois opposes political encroachment into the judiciary, viewing the bill as a threat to the separation of powers. They believe Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board should retain independence in their decisions.
Liberal
Bill creates unsafe conditions: The bill is opposed because it creates more dangerous situations for Canadians, despite the Conservative's tough talk on public safety. The bill would impact 921 current inmates, and would worsen the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous persons in incarceration.
No rehabilitation programs: The bill mandates maximum security without programming for rehabilitation or assessments of whether or not someone might reoffend. This would release inmates back into the community without any support to reduce their reoffending.
Hypocrisy of Conservatives: The Conservatives are being hypocritical, as a previous Conservative government transferred Terri-Lynne McClintic out of a high-security prison into a medium-security prison, which enabled her to be transferred to a healing lodge. The bill is a flip-flop on the position Conservatives held when they were in government and Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
Focus on political gains: The Conservatives are more interested in political gains than in resolving problems, as demonstrated by their contradictory positions on incarceration and crime prevention.
