Bill C-351

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders)

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.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

moved that Bill C‑351, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to the private member's bill I introduced on September 18.

Bill C‑351 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.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Niagara Falls, who introduced a similar bill last June. He is a strong advocate for victims' rights who worked long and hard to deliver the first version of this bill.

This bill differs from the previous one in one respect. It states that the act will come into force in the third month after the month in which it receives royal assent. This change was made to ensure that the bill is brought into force as soon as possible once passed.

No victim's family should ever again have to endure the trauma of seeing the murderer of a child, a parent, a brother or a sister. However, that is what happened to two families this year, which is what gave rise to this bill.

Everyone has heard of Paul Bernardo, the infamous rapist and serial killer. I will spare my colleagues the details of his absolutely horrific crimes, but he kidnapped, tortured and killed 15-year-old Kristen French and 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s near St. Catharines, Ontario. He also committed roughly 40 rapes and sexual assaults. He is a real monster.

On September 1, 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison and declared a dangerous offender. In our justice system, this means that he must serve a minimum of 25 years before he can apply for parole. He has applied twice since 2018. Fortunately, both applications were rejected by the Parole Board of Canada.

Donna French, Kristen's mother, addressed her daughter's killer. She quite rightly described their pain as a life sentence. She said that that is what they got and that a dark cloud always haunts them. She said a psychopath like him should never get out of prison.

This dangerous murderer deserves every day he spends behind bars, and that is where he needs to stay forever. Bernardo had been serving his sentence in a maximum security prison in Kingston since 1995, and that is where he should have stayed until the end of his days.

However, in June 2023, we were shocked to learn that Bernardo had been transferred from the maximum security prison in Kingston to La Macaza, a medium-security prison near Labelle in the Laurentians in Quebec. The day his transfer was announced, a huge shock wave rippled across the entire country, as people relived the horrific events that occurred 30 years before. The prison transfer was done on the sly. We found out about it through an announcement made by the lawyer of the victims' families. What is more, the families were informed of the transfer only the day of. Imagine the trauma that this caused for the families who had to relive this unspeakable tragedy.

According to the Correctional Service of Canada, that situation was in line with protocol. Okay, but the transfer in and of itself should never have happened. The families of the two victims were right to condemn this situation. The families' lawyer said that the victims' families had asked that Bernardo's transfer be cancelled. The lawyer also expressed concerns about how the federal correctional service had informed the victims' families of the controversial decision. However, months later, the transfer has not been cancelled. Worse still, the public safety minister at the time, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, feigned surprise and indignation. He claimed to have been informed only the next day. Later, it was revealed that he had been informed months earlier. Email exchanges were obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

They showed that the Correctional Service of Canada had notified the minister's office on March 2, 2023, of the possibility of the serial killer being transferred. Cabinet was informed in May, after a transfer date had been set. We are used to cover-ups with this government, but trying to hide the truth about something so troubling is beyond the pale.

It was discovered that the associate deputy minister of public safety had been notified about the transfer by the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada three days before it happened. The commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada told them that the federal Public Safety Department, the minister's office, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office “have been advised” and that “we have media lines ready”.

In a tweet posted the day after the transfer, however, the minister described CSC's decision as “shocking and incomprehensible”. After being confronted with these facts, which were embarrassing to say the least, the minister blamed his staff for keeping him in the dark. It is pure incompetence at every level. For all his tangled explanations, the problem remained. Bernardo was moved to a medium-security prison, enjoying privileges that such a sadistic murderer should never be entitled to.

We on the Conservative side questioned the minister and asked him to cancel the transfer, as requested by the victims' families. The minister simply replied that there was nothing he could do, that the Correctional Service of Canada is independent. That is another independent entity. He seemed to forget that, as a minister, he had powers. He had the power to issue instructions to Canadian prison officials and make regulations concerning the incarceration of prisoners.

As usual, he and the Prime Minister refused to accept any responsibility. This is yet another example of incompetence. It is not surprising that the MP for Eglinton—Lawrence is no longer a minister. That is a very good thing. Not only do the Prime Minister and his cabinet say there was nothing they could do, but they have taken steps to make it easier to transfer dangerous criminals.

In 2019, this government passed Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Once it was passed, the bill ensured that prisons would be chosen based on the least restrictive environment possible for the inmate. Victims are not part of the equation. Bill C‑83 reversed a policy introduced by the previous Conservative government that imposed stricter standards for dangerous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada used this policy to try to justify transfers.

The lax system introduced by the Liberals allows nonsensical transfers like this. I read a chilling statistic. In Canada, as we speak, 58 inmates who have been declared dangerous offenders are currently in minimum-security, not even medium-security, prisons. It beggars belief. That is the legacy of eight years of this Liberal government: a lax justice and correctional system that allows this kind of aberration. The government is doing everything it can to accommodate criminals, but nothing for victims. It should be the other way around. This situation is deplorable, and it has to change.

We, the Conservatives, stepped up our efforts to try to have the decision reversed. I have to commend my colleague from Niagara Falls for all of the work that he did on this file. The murders and many assaults were committed in cities near his community. On June 14, he sought the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored.

Unfortunately, the motion was rejected.

My colleague supported the cities of Thorold and St. Catharines when they wrote to the government expressing their grave concerns about Bernardo's transfer and demanding that he be sent back to a maximum-security prison. These letters were sent to the Prime Minister, his public safety minister at the time, and local Liberal MPs, but they fell on deaf ears. The government continued to refuse to use its power to require that mass murderers serve their entire sentence in maximum-security prisons.

He refused to take measures to resolve the problem created by his government. Worse yet, the member for St. Catharines accused those who were offering solutions and those who were trying to convey the families' concerns and suffering of playing politics. As usual, the Liberal government divides and blames instead of taking responsibility and making changes to fix the problems it created.

Another initiative that my colleague took was to propose a study at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 5 to fully investigate Bernardo's transfer. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP supported the government and shut down the whole thing. Apparently, the trauma caused by the transfer did not matter all that much to them. How typical of this government to systematically side with criminals.

Before I conclude, I have two recent examples that show how lax this government is and how it is ignoring victims. These are two examples of cases where the Conservative Party intervened to cancel out this government's reckless decisions. In March, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and political lieutenant for Quebec, introduced Bill C-325, which sought to significantly reform the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in order to make our streets safe again.

This bill would repeal certain elements of Bill C-5, which was passed by the Liberals last fall, and would put an end to the alarming number of convicted violent criminals and sex offenders serving their sentences at home. It is unthinkable that sex offenders and other violent criminals would be released to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms, while their victims and peace-loving neighbours live in fear. This is a common-sense solution from my colleague, whom I would like to commend for his hard work on behalf of victims.

Despite all our efforts, this government remained unmoved by the suffering and trauma that the families of victims went through a second time as a result of this unacceptable transfer. On this side of the House, we stand with victims, not criminals. That is why I introduced the bill we are debating today. The Liberals made a mistake, but we, the Conservatives, will correct course. We will put common sense back into our justice and correctional system.

I hope that my colleagues in the other parties will listen to reason and support victims by voting with us in favour of this bill.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that it would have been possible for the minister to simply order an inmate to any given correctional facility. However, yesterday at committee, we heard from the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada that it would absolutely not be legally possible in this country based on the laws. Is the member opposite suggesting that the commissioner lied, or is the member unaware that it is not legal for a minister to direct where an inmate is held in this country?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the reality of a government in power is to make decisions, provide leadership and do everything in its power to fix any mistakes made.

In this case, a mistake was clearly made. This transfer should never have taken place. I think that the Minister of Public Safety had every right to reverse the decision made by the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned bringing back common sense. I want to tell him what I think common sense is.

In this country, it would appear that there are fundamental rights. He must not forget that. Even criminals have fundamental rights. However, that no longer seems to be the case when the Conservative Party talks about common sense.

My colleague's bill puts two labels on criminals, meaning they no longer have access to rehabilitation. Punishing them for two crimes violates their fundamental rights. My colleague needs to be reminded of that.

I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security yesterday. I questioned the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada. I asked for her opinion on the bill my colleague tabled. I asked her whether this bill would strengthen the rights of victims of crime. I would like to repeat what she said. She mentioned that the bill would have an impact on institutions, and that there would no longer be any reason for inmates to maintain good behaviour towards officers. Rehabilitation is not an option.

I would like my colleague to comment on the reactions of the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question correctly, he is telling us that the reason why the commissioner allowed Mr. Bernardo's transfer is that he demonstrated good behaviour over the past 30 years. If that is the case, then I do not see how staying in a maximum security prison would change his behaviour for the rest of his life.

The reality is that the Bloc Québécois is siding with criminals instead of victims. I think that we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the families who experienced that trauma. The reality is that neither my colleague nor I experienced that trauma, so we likely cannot understand how these families feel. Let us put ourselves in those people's shoes for five minutes and think about what they went through. My colleague from Niagara Falls can tell us about it, because he supported those families.

I can guarantee one thing. I would not want to have to go through all of that, and I would especially not want to have to relive the whole thing 25 or 30 years later.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for the work he has done on this bill and its introduction. The transfer, in particular of Paul Bernardo, that he spoke about in his speech was indeed a slap in the face to the victims' families.

The Liberals are always soft on crime and also on criminals. Why is it Conservatives are the only ones who have the victims and the victims' families in mind while ensuring victims' rights?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to quote something that my colleague Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu said. Since he became a senator, he has been defending the rights of victims, particularly the rights of women. Right now, we know that women in Canada are being murdered on a regular basis. Crimes are being committed against individuals, especially women. We cannot allow that to happen.

For eight years, the crime rate in Canada has been rising based on the new standards—

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

I am sorry, but the member has gone well beyond the allotted time.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to this bill, because it is crucially important that, in this country, we have a conversation about public safety and how inmates are treated, in the sense of maximum, medium and minimum security. I think it is something that most Canadians have not thought too much about, thankfully, in the sense that they have not had to experience the impacts of crime. What I find very challenging with this bill is the fact that Conservatives continually talk tough when it comes to public safety, but this is yet another example of how their tough talk actually relates to a more and more dangerous situation for Canadians.

The sponsor of this bill just ended by talking about women and women's rights, yet nothing in this legislation talks about them. I come from Pickering, right next to Scarborough. Memories of Paul Bernardo and his heinous crimes are something that women across this country are traumatized by. I will be very curious to see how many women on the other side speak to this legislation in the first place. When it comes to women's issues, one thing I remember from the crimes committed by Paul Bernardo was the complete lack of policing support for women who spoke out, who were victims of rape and assault. There is not a single mention of policing or of how to better serve women who have been victims of crime in this private member's bill.

I asked a question earlier in the House, as the members opposite were talking about their opposition day motion, about sending a note to the Senate to hurry up with legislation. However, not a single Conservative member spoke up in the House when there was legislation by their former leader, Rona Ambrose, on having training for judges for sexual assault cases. That legislation sat in the Senate, and not a single Conservative member wrote or spoke to the Conservative senators to have that bill passed. They came here today to say they speak on behalf of women and women's rights, but their actions say a completely different thing. Therefore, I want to talk about this private member's bill and why it actually makes women more vulnerable.

This bill is not just about one individual and their transfer. It actually impacts 921 current inmates, with 32% of those inmates being indigenous. The issues around the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous persons in incarceration would only be worsened by this legislation. I am going to get to that later in my speech; however, for those watching, it is important to remember that this bill impacts many more offenders than the one that the Conservatives want to speak about because the crimes he committed were so heinous, the country was traumatized.

The Conservatives want to use the most heinous criminal in our country as a way to implement reckless policies in the criminal justice system that actually will not keep communities safe. In fact, I submit to the House and Canadians watching that it will actually leave our communities less safe. Why is this? It is because of what the Conservatives fail to talk about, which is that there are different types of sentencing for the 921 inmates who would fall into the categorization that this bill speaks about. Among them, there are inmates who have a determinate sentence. That means the courts have heard their case, and the inmates have been sentenced to a certain amount of time to be incarcerated. Eventually, once they serve that time, they are back in the community.

This is certainly not the situation with Paul Bernardo, and I do not want anyone to misconstrue that. The Conservatives would love to use that to put fear in the hearts and minds of Canadians and Canadian women for their own policy agenda.

I want to stick to the facts. Individuals who serve their determinate sentence would one day, depending on the length of their sentence, be back in the community. However, based on this legislation, they would serve their sentence completely in maximum security, would have no programming for rehabilitation, would have no responsibilities, would have no assessments of whether or not they might reoffend and would have no programs in place to ensure that, once back in the community, there are conditions placed on them.

When the Conservatives talk tough on crime, they are weak on action. What this does for those who serve a determinate sentence is it releases them back into the community without any programs that would reduce their reoffending. It would, in fact, make their situation one where we could probably guaranteed they would reoffend. This is why countries around the world have determined that in criminal justice systems and corrections, rehabilitation programming is crucial to ensure public safety when inmates are released into the community. Then they have had significant programming and treatment to ensure they do not harm others again.

It is so irresponsible to bring up a heinous offender who, as the commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada said yesterday, has the highest, strictest sentence essentially in Canadian law, meaning Paul Bernardo will spend the rest of his life in prison. This bill does not speak to just that one individual. Imagine living in a community with a potentially violent offender who served their time but is just released into the public once the sentence is over. Time and time again, as we know, that does not keep our communities safe.

I could go on and on about how reckless Conservatives are, but with the remaining time I have, I want to read a quote related to the Conservative government about Mr. Sapers, who was the former corrections investigator during the Harper years. The Globe and Mail notes:

...the Conservatives [were] “tone deaf” on indigenous issues and “dismissive” of many of his recommendations....

The Conservatives passed dozens of bills, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences, changed parole eligibility, created new barriers to pardons and cut rehabilitative programming, among other measures.

He said the Conservatives did so without ever analyzing the impact. It goes to show the Conservatives have not learned anything.

The Conservatives also like to say the transfer of Paul Bernardo is in some way connected to Bill C-83 and the “least restrictive” clause. However, what Conservatives ought to know is that the “least restrictive” term was introduced by Conservatives in the 1990s by Brian Mulroney. As to the former Conservative language, Public Safety has issued quite publicly that the language around “necessary restrictions” would have also led to a transfer, which was decided by the independent Correctional Services. It said yesterday that the security and safety of the public can be maintained with this decision.

I know my time is over. I think what is most important is that the bill does nothing to keep Canadians safe. In fact, it would put more people at risk, because the Conservatives are reckless, just want to talk tough and do not do the work to make our communities safer.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague who is introducing this bill and he said that he sides with the victims. That is good. I can assure him that the Bloc Québécois does as well. It always has and always will side with victims. The Bloc also sides with society. We must never lose sight of the fact that our justice system is not just about avenging a victim or punishing a criminal. The purpose of our justice system is to build a safer society where life is good and everyone feels comfortable.

Respecting victims' rights is important. I truly believe that. However, we must also respect the rights of people who have committed crimes. What I just said may seem contradictory, but it is not. We often lose sight of the fact that most people who are sent to prison today will get out at some point. What type of individual do we want to see leave our prisons in five, 10, 20 or 30 years? Do we want these people who committed crimes at the time of their conviction to be comfortable in their role as criminal and to consider resuming the same type of life and behaviour upon their release? Would we not rather want these people to be rehabilitated over the years? That is what I would want.

We have all lost people or been harmed in some way. We have been victims of various crimes in different ways. We must never lose sight of the importance of rehabilitation. We must never lose faith in human beings and in society, even though there may be times when we want to do just that. The Bloc Québécois sincerely believes that we must stay the course on rehabilitation.

Obviously, the Bernardo affair is haunting this debate. My colleague spoke about this earlier. Had it not been for the events of last spring when Mr. Bernardo was transferred from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility, we probably would not be talking about it today. This bill might not have been introduced. Members will recall that Paul Bernardo committed crimes in the early 1990s that we will never be able to understand as a society. Can he ever be rehabilitated? I do not know. One thing is certain. The crimes he committed will never be considered acceptable in our society.

In September 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. That amounts to a minimum of 25 years of incarceration before he can apply for parole. It has been about 30 years since he was sentenced. He can apply for parole, but is he likely to get it? It is not up to me to decide, but I have not seen anything in all that I have read or heard about him that would lead me to believe he has been rehabilitated and is ready to reintegrate into society.

As I was saying earlier, last May, he was transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security penitentiary. I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that Paul Bernardo has been rehabilitated. That being said, is it possible that he has been rehabilitated? Who am I to decide? Thank heavens the decision is not mine to make. We have established authorities, specialized courts and a process to assess these things, and I have faith in the people who handle it all.

The Parole Board of Canada does important work. It decides whether a prisoner can or cannot reintegrate into society, and it grants escorted or unescorted temporary absences, depending on the stage of the sentence. The decision is up to the Parole Board of Canada.

It has the exclusive power to grant, deny, cancel, terminate or revoke day parole and full parole. It also has the power to authorize or approve temporary absences. It is not I, nor is it the Speaker, nor is it my Conservative colleague who makes those decisions. The Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal, a so-called quasi-judicial tribunal that, as part of the Canadian criminal justice system, makes quality conditional release and record suspension decisions. It makes clemency recommendations and manages the whole process.

The board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens. Public safety is the primary consideration in all parole board decisions. I want to emphasize the “timely reintegration” part because, regardless of what people want or would like to see in a perfect world, here in Quebec and Canada, we no longer hang people who commit crimes like the ones Paul Bernardo committed. We do not electrocute them either. We put them in jail. We try to rehabilitate them. Sooner or later, 90% or 95% of them are released. As I said earlier, that is important, essential even. If we care about keeping our families, our children, our neighbours and society in general safe, it is important—indeed, crucial—to ensure that they are rehabilitated by the time they are released.

The purpose of Bill C-351 is to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to take away the discretion that Correctional Service of Canada officers currently have to change the security classification of individuals deemed to be dangerous offenders, as well as those convicted of more than one first-degree murder. The security classification is what will be used to determine the setting in which the individual is detained. What services can be provided to try to rehabilitate them? What conditions must be met in order for the individual to be eligible for visits, either under escort or alone, or for parole? I do not think it is wise to think that they are always going to have a maximum-security classification. This individual will be detained under maximum-security conditions, but one day, they may be released without a rigorous, step-by-step rehabilitation process. That goes against my belief, my faith in the human race. I think that even if we do not want to do it, we have to do everything we can to rehabilitate these people.

In closing, I would like to mention that Anne Kelly, the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security yesterday. She told us that Bill C‑351 could make things more difficult for the people who manage our penitentiaries. If inmates know ahead of time that they will never be downgraded from a maximum-security classification to a lower one and get into a lower-security penitentiary, they may lose all motivation and interest in rehabilitation. If we want these people to rehabilitate themselves, they need to see a light at the end of the tunnel. They need to believe that by working hard and by being good citizens, they will one day be able to see their families, friends and loved ones again and reintegrate into the community, ideally to become active members of society again.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that our thoughts are with Paul Bernardo's victims and their families.

What we saw a few months ago was sad. I think that everyone here in the House is trying to ensure that someone like Paul Bernardo, who has a long record of assault and murder, who had no conscience and who committed horrific crimes, should never be able to leave prison and walk among ordinary folks.

We know full well that this will never happen, either. I think that is quite clear. The correctional service was also very clear on that. The crimes he committed are heinous.

Our thoughts are with the victims.

That being said, it is also important to note that the NDP brought forward a motion at the public safety committee that all members of Parliament around the committee table agreed to for the study we are currently working on. I think it is fair to say that all parties are working together to get to the bottom of the transfer of offenders like Mr. Bernardo to ensure that it never happens again. Tomorrow, we will be having other hearings. The recommendations will go to the government. I am confident that we have learned a lesson from this situation and will not encounter it again. It is extremely important for the victims, for the community and for us all.

The question is whether this bill offers some type of solution. I am very concerned by its use of a flawed process within our correctional services that is really the foundation of this particular bill. I do not know if it was because it was rushed to be produced. However, the fact is that it hangs on the designation of a dangerous offender, when we know that, in our correctional system, the definition of “dangerous offender” is deeply flawed. It needs to be fully investigated, judges need to be trained and there needs to be a shift in how we designate dangerous offenders.

A number of my colleagues, including the parliamentary secretary who spoke, have raised the broader concerns that are before the public. We have a correctional system that is, according to the correctional investigator of Canada, Dr. Ivan Zinger, “nothing short of a national travesty.”

According to an article on his report, “More than 30% of inmates in Canadian prisons are Indigenous — even though aboriginal people make up just 5% of the country’s population”. That is why Dr. Zinger described the situation in our correctional facilities as a travesty.

Moreover, the “figure is highest in the prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where Indigenous people make up 54% of the prison population.” Furthermore, “Numerous factors — including poverty rates and racism in policing — contribute to the imbalance in convictions.”

The article continues:

And once in detention, Indigenous people face another set of systemic inequities: Indigenous offenders are more likely to be sent of maximum-security facilities and are disproportionately the recipients of harm, both self-induced and in incidents involving “use of force”. They are also much more likely to be placed in solitary confinement.

What makes the findings even more troubling, said [Dr.] Zinger, is that the proportion of Indigenous prisoners has steadily increased. Since...2010, the Indigenous population in prisons has grown by nearly 44%....

Let us come to the definition of “dangerous offender”, because that is the cornerstone of the bill before us. Here we see that the travesty that was raised so eloquently by the correctional investigator is even more manifest.

A CBC News article notes:

Advocates say...Indigenous people are disproportionately harmed by dangerous offender designations and are not given adequate support.

“All they want to do is put a dangerous offender designation on and then, just put him away where you'll never hear from [them],” said Congress of Aboriginal Peoples national vice-chief Kim Beaudin.

There were 860 offenders designated as dangerous offenders under the responsibility of Correctional Service Canada...[and] 36.3 per cent were Indigenous, according to CSC....

The number of Indigenous dangerous offender designations has increased 58 per cent....

We have a deeply flawed designation of dangerous offender such that an indigenous offender is 12 times more likely, even committing the same crimes as someone who is non-indigenous, to be designated as a dangerous offender. That is the travesty the correctional investigator was referring to. That is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.

As PressProgress reported just a little while ago, the prairie provinces are failing to address systemic racism in the criminal justice system. When we have a situation where 4% of the population makes up almost half, or 36.3%, of the dangerous offender designations, there is a problem with the kind of designation taking place. The concerns around systemic racism in the criminal justice system, including with sentencing and judges, are things that as a society we need to take on. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was very clear that this is a fundamental problem.

The travesty that was referred to by the correctional investigator needs to be tackled. However, instead of informing the bill by that in any way, it uses a term that has become fraught with peril given the horrible overrepresentation of indigenous people among those with a dangerous offender designation. This is a huge problem and is something I believe the mover should have thought through and consulted on.

At the public safety committee, we are working through ways to ensure the transfer that occurred a few months ago never happens again. To have a bill that would create many more problems by effectively doubling down on a system fraught with systemic racism, to the point where an indigenous offender has a 12 times greater likelihood of being designated a dangerous offender than somebody who is not indigenous, should be of concern to all of us.

My colleague, whom I respect very much, made a number of partisan comments. I want to reply by talking about the justice system in a more adult fashion.

First off, one of the ways we maintain public safety is to ensure those who are sentenced in our correctional institutions stay there. I note that the six worst years for the number of escapees in Canada from our correctional services, from maximum-security and medium-security prisons, all occurred under the Harper regime. Every single one of them did, which is three times more than what we are seeing today. When the Conservative Harper government, the Harper regime, was running our nation's prisons, the threat to public safety was horribly greater than what we are seeing now and what we saw prior to the Harper government. The worst years on record were all from the Conservatives.

Second, I note that other countries, such as Norway, had high recidivism rates that were lowered by taking the approach Canada has taken. Norway's recidivism rate, based on the United States, was over 70% and is now down to 20%, which is the lowest in the world. Canada is at 23%. Those approaches work.

The Conservative intent of always importing Republican-style American approaches to the justice system has been a massive failure. The U.S. has the highest rate of recidivism in the world, with 76.6% of prisoners rearrested within five years. If what we are really talking about is public safety, this failed approach from the Conservatives, failed in terms of prison escapees and recidivism rates, is not something that should be replicated.

We will continue our work at the public safety committee to ensure that something like the Bernardo transfer never happens again. However, the approach we need to take is one that puts public safety at the top level. This bill would not do that.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in my place today to participate in the debate with respect to Bill C-351, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, maximum security offenders. My Conservative colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, has done an incredible job in bringing forward this important bill, which builds on the private member's bill I introduced last June.

On June 14, I introduced Bill C-342 at first reading in the House of Commons. I felt motivated and compelled to introduce this private member's bill after learning that Canada's most notorious criminal had been transferred by Correctional Service Canada from a maximum-security institution to a medium-security prison. In my community, the name Paul Bernardo is synonymous with evil, given the heinous crimes he committed not only in the Toronto area but also in St. Catharines. His actions are so vile that I will not speak of them here. What I can say is that he and his ex-wife took the lives of three young women in Niagara, and the families and friends of those victims have been left to deal with the insurmountable loss, pain and grief he caused for over 31 years now.

Bernardo is a monster who belongs locked up in maximum security for the rest of his life. This prison transfer, which was a downgrade of Bernardo's prison security classification, is completely abhorrent, unimaginable and unacceptable. This decision, which was made last spring by CSC officials, sparked outrage from residents of Niagara, whom I help represent, and from Canadians far and wide across the country. Local municipalities in Niagara, including the cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, passed municipal resolutions to notify the federal government of their alarm and their grave concern regarding Bernardo's prison transfer to medium security. Thorold officials also demanded that Bernardo be sent back to maximum security where he belongs.

In response to this shocking news about Bernardo's downgrade, I tabled Bill C-342, which is common-sense legislation that proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum-security classification. It also proposes to repeal the language of the least-restrictive environment standard for assigning inmates to prisons and replace it with the language of “necessary restrictions”, which is used in the public safety legislation passed by the previous Conservative government to support safe streets and communities.

While Bill C-351 is similar to my bill, its key difference is that it adds a coming-into-force clause, which would see it come into force three months after royal assent. This clause is necessary to make sure that prison transfers such as Bernardo's would not happen again and that this act could take force as soon as possible after it is passed in Parliament.

After eight years of the Liberal government, events like Bernardo's prison downgrade reveal just how out of balance and broken our public safety, corrections and justice systems are and just how far off track the federal government is from its public safety obligations. It is also telling that we cannot even get unanimous consent from all parties in the House to send Bernardo back to maximum security where he belongs. Last spring, I tried twice to get unanimous consent from the House to achieve this outcome, and both times my motion was rejected.

Disappointingly, members of the Liberal government decided to not support our common-sense solution. In fact, one member was quoted in our local Niagara Falls Review as saying that we need to have an adult conversation about this and not be playing politics. They asked for an honest conversation.

Well, this is the time to have that honest conversation. We are in a parliamentary debate about a bill that, if passed, would send dangerous offenders and mass murders such as Bernardo back to maximum-security prison, just as the people in Niagara and their municipal elected representatives have requested, and just as law-abiding Canadians want to see happen. The fact that this prison downgrade took place is evidence enough that something is broken with our core institutions. They need to be fixed to not only correct the mistake of transferring a monster such as Paul Bernardo but also ensure it never happens again in relation to that vile monster and the other dangerous offenders and mass murderers now serving time in maximum-security prisons.

While Bernardo is the primary subject of this debate with respect to Bill C-351, many other dangerous offenders and mass murderers have also been transferred from maximum- to medium-security prisons.

Canadians remember the names of Laura Babcock and Tim Bosma. They are innocent victims who were abducted and killed by Dellen Millard and Mark Smich in July 2012 and May 2013 respectively. The national outrage about Bernardo's prison transfer helped prompt Laura’s mother, Linda Babcock, to speak out on behalf of her family and the Bosma family last June. In May 2021, just five years after his conviction, Smich was transferred to Beaver Creek Institution, a medium-security prison in Gravenhurst, Ontario. It is absurd to believe that someone who commits two first-degree murders can be transferred out of maximum-security prison at all, never mind so quickly, yet here we are again.

This perplexing pattern of dangerous offenders and serial killers being downgraded in our prison system is deeply disturbing. It ultimately erodes faith, trust and confidence that law-abiding Canadians place in their public safety, corrections and justice system to protect them. There is only one political party proposing practical policy solutions to fix these issues and restore confidence in our institutions. The other parties, including the Liberals, can choose to support us or they can be silent by their complacency and ignorance of the deeply troubling problem at hand.

Just because the current policies are weak does not mean these policies cannot be strengthened like they were before. Just because this Liberal government let the Bernardo transfer happen does not mean it has to double down to keep Bernardo in medium-security prison.

This is not a Conservative versus Liberal issue. This is an issue we should all be able to agree upon as elected parliamentarians who work to achieve the common and public good for the country. This government has an obligation to law-abiding Canadians and it must start prioritizing the interests of victims of crime over criminals and protect public safety and our communities. Conservatives are calling on members of all parties to support this legislation so that it can pass as quickly as possible. We must do the right thing. It is about standing up for the victims’ honour, their dignity, their memory and their loved ones. It is about doing what is right for law-abiding Canadians who want to keep their loved ones, families and communities safe. Bill C-351 gives us a chance to do what is right and to do what Canadians expect of their elected officials.

Marcia Penner was one of Kristen French’s best friends growing up. Today, she is a prominent business owner in Niagara-on-the-Lake in my riding, and she is a steadfast victims advocate.

On June 8, Marcia wrote to the CSC commissioner, Anne Kelly. In her email, she wrote, “Paul Bernardo is a monster, and one that is beyond rehabilitation. He is a serial pedophile rapist, abductor, and murderer. He has been deemed a dangerous offender. The worst of the worst. If he doesn’t fit the mandatory requirements for maximum security for his entire prison stay, then please tell me who does.”

Marcia is right. If monsters like Paul Bernardo and Mark Smich are not eligible to stay in maximum-security prison for the rest of their living days, then which dangerous offenders and mass murderers are?

Politics aside, let us support doing what is right. Bill C-351 presents us with this opportunity. I hope members from all parties can come together to support this bill, which is common-sense legislation that will help restore Canadians’ trust and confidence in our public safety, corrections and justice system.

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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 28, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-351, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add a few thoughts on Bill C-351.

It is one of the planks the Conservative Party's members talk about. If we remember, there are four things that they talk about, saying these are the things they would do if they were, heaven forbid, to form government. One of them is to abolish crime. I am not too sure exactly how they are going to abolish crime. I think they have some sort of wand or, through legislation, they are going to make it illegal to commit a crime and, therefore, if it is illegal to commit a crime, crime will go away. I suspect that is what they are thinking.

I say that somewhat sarcastically, but when I look at this bill, it reinforces the need to maybe chastise the Conservatives and their approach in terms of how they like to say one thing when they are in opposition and do something else when they are in government.

I was surprised when going over the summary. I would ask my friends across the way to follow along. I am sure they would agree with me that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy they might be witnessing first-hand. I will read the summary of the bill. It states that Bill C-351 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been designated as dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be classified as a maximum-security offender and be confined, and this is the really important part, in maximum security by Correctional Service Canada.

There are many thoughts that come to my mind regarding what is being proposed. I could talk about the technicalities of trusting the people in place who are professionally trained individuals and have done a fairly incredible job in our jails, correctional facilities and so forth, and of having more faith in them. I could comment on that, but, rather, I want to point out and expand upon the comments I made about the hypocrisy issue.

Many members will recall the horrific brutality of the killing of Tori Stafford and the abuse and murder that ultimately took place. In fact, it was not that long ago when we heard a regurgitation of it by a number of Conservative members of Parliament, who were raising the issue in fairly graphic detail at times. They were doing that because Terri-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a healing lodge. The Conservative Party was absolutely outraged because that had taken place.

A number of Conservatives took it upon themselves, as I said, to graphically explain what happened to the victim, somewhat referring to the family. Even to this day, I extend my most sincere condolences to them in recognizing the horrific actions that took place. The family and the community are still living with that tragedy.

Having said that, we were soundly criticized. I believe Ralph Goodale was minister of public safety at the time and he was being criticized because of this transfer. I remember it quite well because it was being debated and I commented on the issue. As the debate went on, one of the things we found out was that it was actually Stephen Harper's government that saw Terri-Lynne McClintic transferred out of a high-security prison into a medium-security prison, which enabled her to be transferred to the healing lodge.

With a little more research, what can be found is that this is not the first person. When the Conservative Party was in power, we saw a mass murderer actually being transferred out of high-security into medium-security prison. Now we have a private member's bill that is against what Stephen Harper and his government did. They allowed the professionals, the individuals charged with the responsibility for issues such as jail conditions, the type of incarceration and so forth, to make the decisions. Stephen Harper did what was expected of him as prime minister.

Where were the Conservative voices back then? The leader of the Conservative Party was actually in Stephen Harper's cabinet. I am sure members could appreciate why I am a little skeptical of how the Conservatives are now taking the position that they want high security and that it is absolutely mandatory.

At the end of the day, it is all about the votes for the Conservative Party. It is not about the issues, and they have demonstrated that. It is interesting. The Conservatives recently started talking about auto thefts. Now they are being critical of the government, and we have taken tangible actions on that.

I think back to 2007-08, although I might be off by a year or two, when I was in the provincial legislature in Manitoba. The prime minister was Stephen Harper, and today's leader of the Conservative Party was with him. At that time, no province in the country had more auto theft than the province of Manitoba did, and it was by a long shot. This was not even on a per capita basis. On a per capita basis, it would have been an astronomical difference. We had a serious issue.

What got Manitoba back on the right track was when law enforcement, the federal government and the province came together to come up with a solution to deal with auto theft in the province of Manitoba. It was very effective once it really got going.

One should not quote me on the numbers, but we are talking about thousands of vehicles. If we look at Manitoba, with a population base of under 1.2 million back then, and Ontario, with 14 million-plus people, we still had more vehicles being stolen. It took the governments coming together to make a difference. That is what we are seeing with Ontario and Quebec in trying to deal with this very serious issue.

Therein lies the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. As a government, we are prepared to work with other jurisdictions in order to have their backs and support Canadians in whatever way we can. We can contrast that with the Conservatives, who are more interested in bumper stickers than they are in resolving problems. That is how I see Bill C-351, which is actually a flip-flop on the position Conservatives held when they were in government and Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑351, which is sponsored by the Conservative member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I followed the saga surrounding the transfer of inmate Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security penitentiary to the medium-security facility in La Macaza, because the La Macaza institution is located in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle.

On March 27, at the invitation of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers , I spent the day inside the institution. What I heard that day had absolutely nothing to do with the inmate in question. We agree that his crimes are revolting, but quite honestly, we are not concerned about his transfer to that facility. What revolts us is what is happening inside the walls of this institution. The correctional officers told me about some things that I want to share.

They told me about the delivery of drugs by drone, faulty and outdated equipment and staff retention issues. They told me about shivs, physical assaults on employees and the list goes on. I spent the day there. Rather than addressing the real problems in federal penitentiaries, since it is not just at the La Macaza facility that we need to take action to ensure the safety of staff who work every day to keep the public safe, the Conservative Party has introduced a populist, sensationalist bill.

That is not taking care of people. When a party aspires to form the government, its absolute priority should be to take care of people. Instead, the Conservatives want to instill fear in everyone by making up problems where there are none. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo came to La Macaza in early February for a photo op. Unfortunately for him, some of the facts were wrong.

When I went there, it was not to engage in self-promotion. I was there to get input from the correctional officers and all the employees who work to ensure public safety. I was there to understand their reality, to understand what happens behind the walls, to understand this universe that is completely foreign to me, but is important to grasp in order to avoid coming to hasty conclusions and to have a better sense of this critical problem in our democratic society.

The Bloc Québécois has always stood up for victims. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who has already spoken about this bill, had this to say:

I can assure him that the Bloc Québécois [also sides with the victims]. It always has and always will side with victims. The Bloc also sides with society. We must never lose sight of the fact that our justice system is not just about avenging a victim or punishing a criminal. The purpose of our justice system is to build a safer society...

I can say that I am quite partisan about what comes next. As I often say, in a mature, democratically evolved society where the rule of law is a fundamental value, we cannot accept even the slightest encroachment of politics into the judiciary. To me, that is key.

In his work The Spirit of Law, Montesquieu outlines his theory of the separation of powers. He states that, in order to avoid despotism, it is absolutely essential to separate the legislative, executive and judicial powers. This bill is nothing less than a proposal to reverse that sacrosanct separation. The Government of Canada, regardless of its colour, whether it is red, blue or potentially orange, may well seize arbitrary powers for itself, but when it comes to judicial powers, politics should not play a part.

The independence of Correctional Service Canada's and the Parole Board of Canada's decisions about incarcerated individuals, including assigning and changing their respective security classification, stems from the quasi-judicial nature that the law confers on them. Even if these two organizations are attached to the government apparatus, they are effectively equipped with an administrative tribunal that must make decisions independently. I like that word.

The Conservatives are proposing to remove that independence from bodies that make decisions based on objective and impartial criteria. The fact is, that worries me. We need to have governments that respect the independence of government agencies. We saw that the Harper government often trampled on that independence. We see that the Conservative Party wants to go down that road again. That does not bode well for the future. On one hand, we have the Liberal Party that interferes in provincial jurisdictions. On the other hand, we have the Conservative Party that wants to interfere in the independence of government organizations. I believe that is going too far, and it does not bode well.

I will wrap up my speech. The bill introduced by the Conservative member from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is a complete departure from the principle whereby these offenders can be on a path to rehabilitation.

In our society, we do not want penitentiaries to become factories to turn out criminals. Yes, we want them to be places where people are detained, but we also want them to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. In our society, we want the separation of powers to be respected. We want human rights to be respected. We want those who have demonstrated a willingness to reintegrate into society to have a second chance and to turn their lives around, when possible. We want governments that respect everyone's jurisdictions.

That is the society that we will build when Quebec becomes a country.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly ending the week by debating the bill before us provides a certain level of weight for anybody who is recounting the atrocities and the sensationalism that has re-entered public discourse. Certainly, as my Bloc colleague has suggested, I think any discussion in the House needs to be victim-centred. It needs to be survivor-centred. When we propose legislation, I think it is important that we have a duty and responsibility to think about all the ways in which our rhetoric and our communications might be received in the general public and might actually cause some harm.

Before I even begin my remarks, I just want to reflect on, given the nature of the particular reactionary piece of legislation before us, the impacts that Bernardo had in my community. As the member for Hamilton Centre, I know that members will recall that two of his victims were in my region. In the early 1990s, as a young adult of 12 or 13 years, I recall, crystal clear, being at a recreation centre at a karate tournament when the news broke of the atrocities that had happened in the community. As I am sure every member of the House does, when I reflect upon the monstrosities that were committed, I go back through them. Of course, we all know that Leslie Erin Mahaffy, Kristen French and Tammy Homolka were the three victims of the two brutal and vicious criminals.

However, sometimes what is lost is that there were also survivors. There are people who are watching this debate right now who would have had a direct connection, a very violent and traumatic connection, to the atrocities committed by Paul Bernardo. I want people who are watching to know that I and the New Democrats, and indeed many folks in here across all party lines, want to reflect on the fact that they are still living through the horrors that have been expressed in the House, and we want to make sure that any approach we have would be victim-centred.

However, I do not believe that the particular piece of legislation before us is necessarily victim-centred. I do not believe that it would offer victims any of the four foundational principles of victim-centred approaches to things like sexual assault, gender-based violence and the idea of safety and respect. I think that one of the most atrocious, evil and despicable things that a human being can do to another person has been sensationalized and generalized, such that all people caught within the frameworks would be comparable to it. I would suggest that is not the case. I want to honour the survivors who might be tuning in, and I want them to know that if there is any good that comes of the current debate, it is that we should be shifting our justice strategies so that they are not just about crime and punishment but also, again, about victim-centred and survivor-centred approaches.

Let us be clear about what the bill would do; it would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders, or have been convicted of more than one first-degree murder, be assigned to a security classification of maximum and be confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary for the duration of their sentence. Indeed, it is a reflection, and I think all social scientists would agree, of a failed tough-on-crime approach. The reason is that, within the due bounds of our law, there are scenarios, setting aside the atrocities of Paul Bernardo, where, based on this, people would eventually end up leaving prison.

Therefore the question becomes this: What is it that we are unleashing into our community once these people have been incarcerated for decades of their lives? How are we reflecting upon the impacts of any prospect of rehabilitation lost by the failed social approach, the failed Conservative approach, to tough-on-crime? If we put violent people, deeply problematic people and people who were traumatized into settings that continue to dehumanize them, then eventually we will have to work through what will happen when they return to our communities.

It is not like there are no better examples around the world. We only have to look to what some Scandinavian countries have done when it comes to rehabilitation. Norway's rate of recidivism decreased from a high of 70% in 1992 to the lowest in the world, at 20%, after it started community-based correctional facilities and focused on rehabilitation.

When I say these words, it is important for the public and the members in the House to not conflate the evils and the monstrosities of the worst and the most violent among us and to understand that laws ought not to be a knee-jerk response to individual failings or to individual cases, but actually need to be a collective response to our society's social pressures.

In the U.S., with it's toughness on crime, which the “Canadian Republican Party” has seemed to have adopted, the rate of return is 76.6%. Even the fiscal Conservatives among them, the ones who are truly fiscal Conservatives, would recognize that the cost of incarceration is enormous. There needs to be discretion. There needs to be the ability for those who are honestly taking steps for rehabilitation to be rehabilitated and to go from the institutionalization of a maximum-security prison to conditions that would better match the realities of the outside world so that when they are released, the likelihood of them reoffending drops.

That is not my opinion; those are the facts, but unfortunately, punishment is the only tool the Conservatives have in their tool box when dealing with these issues. Rehabilitation is not even in their vocabulary. Their position in this regard is one that is sensationalist and does prey upon the most basic and base fears of society and is based on the most evil who walk among us. There are exceptional cases of violence in this country. I am not naive to that. There are people who have done unspeakable things, but our system currently deals with that.

Were there administrative errors? Could there be administrative errors from time to time? Absolutely, that could be the case. However, concerning the transfer of Paul Bernardo, Dr. Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, in his written submission to the SECU committee on November 27, wrote, “In this case, it is especially important to make clear that Canada's correctional system is based on the principle that the rule of law follows sentenced persons into prison.”

Imprisonment does not mean total deprivation and absolute forfeiture of one's rights. The investigator went on to say, “My Office cannot, and does not, select or decline cases on the basis of one's criminal conduct or notoriety. My Office serves all federally sentenced persons, regardless of their sentence.” That is the underlying principle of the rule of law.

I would encourage members of the House, including the so-called “tough on crime” Conservatives, to reflect on ways, perhaps in the remaining months of this session and in the remaining time we are in this legislature and this Parliament, to shift their thinking and to start actually thinking about the victims and the survivors of crime as the primary priority for our legislative responses. I would like them to think about the material conditions for people currently within our federal prison systems. I would like them to think about the investments that could be made to support people in mental health and to support people in social crisis.

With that, I am thankful for this time. I will take my last five seconds to reflect upon not just the victims who were murdered by Paul Bernardo, but also upon all the survivors who may be watching this. They should know that, as New Democrats, our hearts go out to them, to their families and to the communities impacted by this.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been almost a year since one of the most notorious serial killers in Canada was moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security facility under provisions of the NDP-Liberals' so-called justice legislation, Bill C-83.

This serial killer is infamous for his long string of rapes in Scarborough; the rape, torture and murder of his sister-in-law; and the rape, torture and murder of two very young, innocent girls from St. Catharines. We all know his partner in crime, his wife, Karla Homolka, skated with a 10-year sentence, despite actively participating in the crimes as per the videotape the police had in their possession. This rapist, this serial killer, this monster is Paul Bernardo.

Let me acknowledge the pain and suffering, and the repeated victimization, of the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. I cannot imagine the pain that they live with everyday. God bless them.

After Bernardo, that monster, was found guilty of his crimes, the judge correctly sentenced him to life imprisonment as a dangerous offender, meaning he should have stayed locked up in maximum security until he died of old age. However, no, our current government, this woke bunch of MPs who are running our justice system, decided that Paul Bernardo is the real victim, a nice, fine, misunderstood fellow who deserves medium security.

The Liberals passed a law, Bill C-83, which explicitly tells police, judges and Correctional Services Canada to impose the least restrictive measures on a person as possible. In practice, this means that this monster, Paul Bernardo, now lives in a dormitory, has a tennis court and ice rink for recreation, and access to sharp instruments when he gets that urge to murder again. It is not even close to maximum security. That makes no sense.

On June 23 last year, I asked the justice minister, in this very House. why Paul Bernardo gets such special treatment. What was his answer? Of course, he did not answer at all. Instead, one of the Prime Minister’s attack dogs got up to say that, just because Paul Bernardo is a bad man, it does not mean the Liberals did anything wrong with their legislation.

Yes, everyone heard me right: the Liberals refused to take responsibility for their own actions. However, members need not worry. Since the current NDP-Liberal government refuses to take responsibility for its own actions, it will be the Conservatives who once again step up to the plate to fix the situation.

What would that fix? Bill C-351 is a bill introduced by my great Conservative colleague from Quebec. This legislation would fix the mess created by the Liberals in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would amend section 28 of the act, which currently states, “If a person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment”.

That is what the Liberals have changed it to say. They made it as easy on the convicted criminal as possible. This is why Bernardo is getting all the special treatment.

My colleague's bill proposes to change that section to say, “ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with an environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. In other words, only make it easier on a convicted criminal if it is absolutely necessary. This legislation is making a significant fix through changing the words “least restrictive environment” to “environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. While it is a simple language change, it is a massive policy change.

When it comes to crime and what to do with criminals who victimize Canadians, Conservatives, such as myself, my colleague and our leader, have very different approaches than those of the NDP-Liberal government. Conservatives believe that victims of crimes, those who are innocent, who have been terrorized in their own homes, have had their cars stolen, have been mugged on our streets, who have been are raped and those who have had family members murdered, should come first.

The NDP-Liberals have a very different approach than Conservatives do to crime. I believe in common sense. If a crime was committed, the criminal needs to answer. The woke, NDP-Liberal approach is that the criminal is the single most important person in the justice system. They believe, and they have written into law, that police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and jailers must take into account diversity, equity, inclusion and critical race theory when dealing with criminals. They have put into place checklists. Does this criminal have any sort of skin colour, racial background, sexual identity or anything in their background that would warrant that criminal to walk away scot-free? If so, let them go. That is the NDP-Liberal approach to criminal justice.

This woke crowd does not care if a criminal has raped a woman, kidnapped a child or murdered a indigenous man because, in their minds, that so-called underprivileged criminal is more important than any victim can be. In their topsy-turvy world view, it actually sees those committing the crimes as the people who need to be cared for, while the actual victims continue to suffer over and over again.

Senator Kim Pate, appointed by the current Liberal Prime Minister, summed up the Liberal hug-a-thug position quite nicely last year when she addressed the Fredericton City Council. She said, “Canada’s criminal legal system is unjust, discriminatory and biased against indigenous people and people of colour.”

I agree that it has been unjust against indigenous victims of crime like those on the James Smith Cree Nation. The coroner's inquest, which was held in my home riding of Saskatoon West, by the way, was clear on the point. The man who murdered all those indigenous people on the reserve should never have been released in the first place. However, folks like Senator Pate do not particularly care about those victims, do they? Instead, they are making excuses for the inexcusable. Senator Pate is one of the many examples of what is absolutely wrong with NDP-Liberal justice.

Once a crime is committed, the criminal must be punished, period. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will bring in tough-on-crime legislation. We will lock up the criminals. We will stop the crime. “Diversity, equity, inclusion” and critical race theory approaches that lead to “hug a thug” and to repeat offenders will be swept away. Common-sense Conservatives will bring back mandatory minimums. We will crack down on the people who sexually exploit our children and on the people who peddle sexually explicit images of children on the Internet. Indeed, my Conservative colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap brought in his private member’s bill, Bill C-291, to do this very thing.

We will take the issue of women being trafficked into sexual slavery seriously and not laugh it off as sex workers and body positivity, as men pay their pimps in order to abuse and demean women. My colleague, the Conservative MP for Peace River—Westlock has introduced legislation in the House to accomplish this through Bill C-308, an act respecting the national strategy to combat human trafficking.

We will ensure that men who commit violence against pregnant women face stiffer sentences. The NDP and the Liberals voted to kill the legislation, based on the justification that beating a pregnant woman senseless is just another form of abortion, almost as if that were a good thing. I would argue that the last thing a civilized country like Canada should do is beat pregnant women and not punish criminals properly for it. I proudly supported the legislation brought forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, that would have allowed the judge to consider pregnancy as an aggravating factor when sentencing someone who has beaten a pregnant woman.

Shall I give another example? Why not? Let us contrast, juxtapose and expose the soft-on-crime approach of the NDP-Liberals. My Conservative colleague, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has introduced Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would make life imprisonment actually life imprisonment. That means that if someone commits—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We have just been raising the issue of false titles, but the member just used one again. “NDP-Liberal” and “Bloc-Liberal” government are false titles. They are falsehoods and should not be used in the House of Commons.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

These are points of order that were raised earlier. As the hon. member knows, the Speaker is reviewing the issues, and we will be back to the House in the next few weeks with some recommendations on how to move forward with some of what is being said.

At this point I am going to allow the hon. member for Saskatoon West to resume his speech.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know it really annoys the NDP when we talk about this. Its members need to stop supporting the Liberals if that is what they want.

Life imprisonment would mean that if someone commits murder and gets a life sentence, they would serve a minimum of 25 to 40 years before parole eligibility. Let us face it: Right now the sentences under the current woke system of putting criminals first mean letting murderers walk away after very little time served.

I will give colleagues some examples. Many may recall that a few years back, the NDP-Liberals made changes to ease up on the sentencing rules. Around that time, Christopher Garnier drugged, raped and murdered off-duty Halifax police officer Catherine Campbell. He did horrible things to her, spread her body parts around Halifax and treated her remains like human garbage, according to the judge. As outraged as the judge was, the best he could do was to sentence the serial rapist and now murderer to 13 and a half years, reduced to only 11 years with time served. Imagine that, 11 years for drugging, raping, murdering and desecrating the body of a police officer. By the way, the coroner testified that it took Catherine Campbell six minutes to die by strangulation after her rape; that is just two years of prison time for every minute he took to kill her. This could happen only in Canada and only in the NDP-Liberals' woke version of Canada.

Let us talk about Rylen Heavenfire in Calgary; this man got only four years for shooting and killing his brother with a gun. The facts are undisputed: “Heavenfire pointed the shotgun he was carrying at his brother and shot him in the face”, yet the judge said the man could be rehabilitated. What about punishing Heavenfire for taking the life of his brother? Does his brother’s life not count even a little bit, or is the victim in this story just another piece of human garbage?

The scales of justice are represented by an icon of a lady wearing a blindfold. She does not see race, skin colour or whom one prays to. All she cares about is balancing the scales. What is fair to the victims is justice. Is four years for raising a shotgun, pulling the trigger and murdering one's brother really justice? Conservatives believe that if someone murders someone, then they should be punished for their crime. For those of us with actual common sense, it is not the victims who should be treated like human garbage.

Let me wrap up by saying that I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party fully support the legislation in front of us today. We believe in common-sense justice. We believe criminals like Paul Bernardo who were sentenced to maximum security should not be getting special treatment. They should be in maximum security. We believe in justice for repeat victims, not coddling repeat criminals. Conservatives believe in protecting families in their homes, not allowing rapists and murderers to roam our streets unpunished. It is time to stop the crime. It is time to bring it home.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to deliver a final reply in the debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-351, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding maximum security offenders.

I will not go into the details of the context surrounding the introduction of such a bill. I will simply point out that what prompted it was the news last June that serial killer Paul Bernardo had been transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security one. It was news that shocked the public and forced the families and victims to relive their trauma. This bill seeks to ensure that maximum-security offenders remain in a maximum-security facility, where they deserve to be.

I would once again like to thank my colleague from Niagara Falls, who introduced a similar bill, as well as a motion calling for the immediate cancellation of Bernardo's transfer. Unfortunately, his motion was defeated.

I listened carefully to my colleagues' speeches, in the first hour of reading and today, and I have a few comments to make.

My Liberal colleagues mentioned that we do not care about women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Conservative Party has always stood with victims. Unfortunately, when it comes to dangerous offenders, the vast majority of victims are women. I also heard the Liberals say that we are using this bill to fearmonger. They falsely claim that we want to make people believe that offenders like Bernardo could end up being released. That is not the purpose of this bill at all.

The probability that such a dangerous criminal would be out on release is extremely low. However, the fact that he was transferred from a maximum- to a medium-security prison is something we want to prevent. I repeat, the very simple goal of this bill is to ensure that such criminals, given their horrific actions, are kept in maximum-security prisons, not in institutions where they would receive much more generous privileges. Most importantly, we want to prevent the families of victims from having to relive a trauma that no one would want to experience.

Other colleagues have also talked about rehabilitation. I heard someone say earlier that we do not believe in it. That is absolutely not the case. Our party does believe in rehabilitation, especially for young offenders. For some offences, a second chance is the way forward, but in the Bernardo case, for example, I am sure members will agree that rehabilitation is impossible. A second chance for such a monster is out of the question. We are talking about at least 1,000 inmates in Canada who are considered dangerous offenders.

As evidence of the current government's soft-on-crime attitude, the response to an Order Paper question submitted by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo revealed that most of these offenders are serving their sentences in medium- or even minimum-security prisons. There are dangerous offenders in minimum-security institutions. That is what happens when a government does not have its priorities straight, when a government believes that the right thing to do is to offer dangerous criminals the least restrictive environment. That is what happened in 2019 with the passage of Bill C-83, which puts the comfort of criminals ahead of concern for victims' families. That is pure liberalism. That is the legacy of the Liberal government after nine years in power.

On this side of the House, we stand by the victims and not the criminals. That is why I introduced this bill and I am proud of it. Where the Liberals have failed, we will succeed. We will restore common sense in our justice and correctional system.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 1:39 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 29, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:39 p.m.)