Bill C-232

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

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is not permitted to mislead the House. There was Bill C-28, which changed things. He is leaving that out. He is misleading the House. He should—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I know where the member thinks he has a point of order, but that is a question of debate. I know the member has a speaking slot later where he can certainly raise those matters for debate, but it is not a point of order.

The hon. member can resume.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the interruption is unfortunate, but I am not surprised.

I was making the point that at the end of the day, we do have Correctional Service Canada that ultimately is in the best position to make a decision that is not based on politics. Back in the day, when it did happen when the member's party leader sat around the cabinet table—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question the relevance of this little filibuster and would like to get back to the subject of the hate bill, Bill C-9.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member is rising on the same point of order, and I hope he will keep it very brief. I think we can move on quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to show that it was relevant, so the member is aware, it is about transferring from maximum security to minimum—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We are going to say that this is a matter of debate, and we will have lots of time to debate this going forward.

The member has about one minute left. I would ask him to conclude his remarks in one minute or less.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from her seat, the member says I am not debating Bill C-9. We are not talking about Bill C-9. We are talking about a private member's bill. It is completely relevant. It is hypocrisy when we have the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party today talking about politicization, whereas when he was in government around the cabinet table, he did nothing of the sort in regard to a transfer.

At the end of the day, I think that the constituents we represent understand and appreciate the fact that it is important to recognize the independence of our entire judicial system. They have a system that is in place to protect Canadians, and we need to respect that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in the study of this bill. This is a rather delicate matter, since this bill was introduced to respond to a very specific case. I think it is dangerous to draft a bill that targets a single case. As legislators, we have to think about how our bill will apply to all sorts of criminals who are incarcerated if it is passed, and we need to consider its actual application.

Yesterday, I read in the newspapers that another fight had gone awry at the federal penitentiary in Donnacona and that one inmate had killed another. I can say that the situation in federal penitentiaries is no bed of roses for correctional officers right now, because they are so short-staffed. There is a shortage of correctional officers. Correctional officers are really stretched to the limit because of equipment and recruitment issues. They are sometimes five or six officers short on certain shifts. That is the case at the Drummondville federal penitentiary, for example. Those are difficult conditions.

The bill refers to the irrevocable incarceration of any inmate who has committed more than one murder. The bill does not refer only to dangerous offenders. It refers to criminals who have committed more than one murder or who have been found to be dangerous offenders. It states that these individuals would be required to serve their sentences in a maximum-security penitentiary with no possibility of release. That is what we find problematic about this bill. It bears repeating that the Bloc Québécois believes in the justice system and the work done by Correctional Service Canada. Above all, the Bloc believes in rehabilitation. Basically, we oppose sentences that could hinder rehabilitation.

Before our Conservative colleagues get all worked up, I want to say that we know that some criminals have no capacity for rehabilitation. For example, in the case at issue here, that of Paul Bernardo, we know that this offender is not capable of being rehabilitated. We understand that, and we know that this bill is really aimed at him. Paul Bernardo is a name that everyone knows because, in the early 1990s, he and his accomplice kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed three young girls. He was sentenced to life in prison for those horrific crimes. He is a dangerous offender.

The reason we are talking about him with respect to this bill is because he got himself transferred, in strict secrecy and without the families' knowledge, to a series of medium-security prisons, including La Macaza, which is in my colleague's riding. Many mistakes were made on that file, and it cost the then minister of public safety his job. Members may know that La Macaza houses a number of sex offenders. This transfer was carried out in strict secrecy, as I was saying, probably because Correctional Service Canada believed that the public would never tolerate the idea of this dangerous offender being transferred to a medium-security prison.

It goes without saying, but I want to make it very clear that we have no pity for criminals like Paul Bernardo, Luka Rocco Magnotta or Alexandre Bissonnette. The bill, as it is currently written, is primarily aimed at them, but it also covers people who have committed multiple murders, more than one murder. It is this aspect that we have an issue with. I just want to remind members that three factors are taken into account when determining where an inmate will be detained. One of the primary reasons an inmate may be incarcerated in a maximum-security prison is their behaviour.

For example, an inmate who constantly assaults their fellow inmates or correctional officers could be transferred to a maximum-security prison to ensure the safety of others. Another factor is flight risk. We have seen dangerous offenders who have managed to escape from prison. Those who attempt or manage to escape may require closer supervision and will therefore be placed in a maximum-security prison. Those who pose a high risk to public safety will also be placed in a maximum-security prison.

We can all agree that, in Paul Bernardo's case, Correctional Service Canada's judgment was questionable. One has to wonder how it came to the decision that it did. It made no sense at all to parliamentarians and especially to victims, their families and the community. Again, that decision was so reckless that it cost the justice minister at the time his job.

Let us keep in mind that Bill C‑232 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.

In our view, this provision cannot be broadly applied because we know the justice system makes mistakes. Sometimes justice gets it wrong. It is sad but true. Many examples come to mind. In my questions earlier, I talked about Claude Paquin, who was convicted of two first-degree murders and spent 18 years in prison. He was acquitted at the age of 81, 41 years after he was charged. The first thing he said to the judge when she finally exonerated him was, “You just got me out of hell.”

It is clear that if my colleague's bill were passed, Mr. Paquin could never have been found innocent and acquitted in the end, even after 18 years in prison. That is why we oppose the bill before us. However, I understand where my colleague is coming from, because this request came from his community and his constituents. That is often what moves us emotionally, leading us to introduce bills that our constituents are calling for. I understand that he firmly believes that his bill will fix the situation and that there will be no more cases like Paul Bernardo's.

I can say one thing. I am touring federal penitentiaries in Quebec. I have visited Port‑Cartier and Drummond. I am going to visit La Macaza and the women's prison in Joliette soon. During my first two visits, I was truly shocked to see how little support Correctional Service Canada provides to correctional officers.

I am struck by the fact that these officers have to work and do mandatory overtime in working conditions that anyone would find unacceptable. I am being sincere when I say that those working in a maximum security prison have to be tough, because it is dangerous. It is dangerous work, and not just because the inmates are dangerous, but also because the work tools are faulty. Some of these prisons could really use some TLC, and they need to adapt to new technologies.

Is it normal for drones to openly smuggle drugs and weapons into the Drummondville and Port-Cartier prisons, or for correctional officers to work in second-hand marijuana smoke because drugs are being brought into our prisons via drones?

There is much to be said about the working conditions of our officers and the current situation in our prisons. The Conservatives have been pushing to put more people in prison since the start of this parliamentary session. That is perfectly normal for some. Nevertheless, I will conclude by saying that while that is all well and good, we must also ensure that correctional officers in prisons are able to do their jobs properly. We must ensure their safety and that of the public.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but this is a particularly good occasion.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the work of Anita Price, somebody who faithfully and diligently worked in my office at 100 Mile House, which is no longer in the riding, as well as in our Kamloops office on an as-needed, part-time basis. Anita has just been a stalwart. We thank her for her service to the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and all Canadians.

I also want to welcome to Canada Hunter Rose Friesen, the daughter of Mike Friesen and Brittany Matheson. Mike was a former staff member here on Parliament Hill, who also served a number of Canadians and a number of members of Parliament. We welcome Hunter, and we hope she and her parents are doing well.

On a more sombre note, I recognize the life of Giovannina Mercuri, wife of Vittorio and mother to Amedeo, Mirella, Rita, Giovanni and Pietro. She passed away, leaving behind many memories of a family who I am sure misses her deeply. I have for some time been hoping for the opportunity to stand to recognize a life well lived. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I also rise today and recognize the life of Alfredo Caputo. Of course, sharing the same last name, we are related. He was pre-deceased by his wife, Fiorina, and his daughter, Luigina. Left to mourn him are Peter, Anna, Rosie and their families. He leaves behind many grandchildren. I was able to just make his funeral last week. He will obviously be missed. As a treasured part of the Caputo family, I wish his family all the best in a difficult time of mourning. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I rise today as well to recognize the life of Dina Piva. I have gotten to know a couple of her sons quite well, especially her son Dennis. I also know Laura and Mario, the other children Dina leaves behind. Her family has done so much for the area, for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. They are a well-respected family. I know that her children will present her legacy in an amazing way. May perpetual light shine upon her.

There are so many people on the Liberal benches who I wish could hear this speech. We were misled today by the member for Winnipeg North. In fact, if he disagrees with me, I wish he would rise in his spot right now and call a point of order stating that he did not mislead anybody. He did not state the facts. This is why.

He asked why, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, he did not deal with Paul Bernardo being transferred to medium security, which is what we are talking about in this private member's bill. It was because the law was different. The Liberals changed the law. With Bill C-28, in the 42nd Parliament, they changed the threshold for correctional custody for all decision-making to what is called the least restrictive measure. That means a person must be incarcerated under the least restrictive measure. That means that if they can be handled in minimum security, they must go there, regardless of how heinous their offence is. The member told the House and Canadians that the Conservatives could have dealt with it and did not. That is completely wrong and, dare I say, very misleading. He was told it was misleading, and he doubled down. That is not what we should expect and accept as members of this House.

I actually visited the jail where Paul Bernardo was held, and Anne Kelly, the commissioner of corrections, on her way out, in my view, did not like what I had to say, because under her watch, the government put out information that was false about my visit, but I was there with a staff member and a union member who backed up everything I had to say.

I went to Paul Bernardo's cell. He walked up, and we came eye to eye. What did the government say? It was that the MP and Bernardo had no interactions. Well, of course we had no interactions. I did not want to talk to the guy. I did not want to shake his hand. He is one of the most vile people in Canada. No, we did not have any interactions, but we actually did come eye to eye. People can look this up on local media in Kamloops, because the correctional union official gave a statement to the media. The fact that Anne Kelly and correctional officials would seek to sully the reputation of a member of Parliament is disgusting, and it is wrong.

It is the same thing with the hockey rink. Paul Bernardo has a hockey rink there. There were nets that were tilted up so they would not freeze against the rink. The government said that the hockey rink was not currently operational. What does that mean? One thing officials did not say was that the tennis court was not currently operational. For those who are not aware, the hockey rink doubles as a tennis court. I have a photo of it, if anybody wants to see. It has lighting of the kind that we would find at a local park.

When the Liberals say, “What's the big deal?”, I will tell them what the big deal is. Paul Bernardo, in medium security, has access to a hockey rink, tennis court and skates, which the government left out in its defamatory statements. I would challenge any of those members to say it outside of here. They would not say that I am lying. They just like to put 40% of the picture together, which is meant to mislead.

What does it say about us as a society when one of Canada's worst people can go from maximum to medium security? If members do not think that there is a difference, and I believe Anne Kelly told one of the victims there was no difference, there is actually a substantial difference. The perimeter security is the same, two fences, but as somebody who worked in corrections, I can say that if a person goes to maximum security, there is door after door. In medium security, it is often an open concept.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, and this is something that I hope the member from Winnipeg digests, killed an eight-old girl, Tori Stafford. Part of it was a sexual assault. Guess where she is: medium security. She lives in townhouse-style living, and guess what is next to her house in medium security? It is the mother-child program. We cannot make this up. A sex offender who killed a child lives next door to the mother-child program, but the Liberals will tell us, “Don't worry, the door is locked all the time.” I can tell members that I know it is not locked all the time, because whether there are kids or not, there are two doors. The front door may be locked, although I walked right in the one time I went there, and saw two young boys, but there is actually a side door as well that is not locked, and I confirmed that the door is never locked.

I challenge the next Liberal speaker, whoever it is, to address this. Think about the Bernardo victims. Look into the camera and say, “I'm okay with Paul Bernardo being in medium security. I'm okay with Terri-Lynne McClintic living next door to children.” They will not do it. I am sure we are going to hear what I hope is not a prepared speech, but likely is, read verbatim. What does it say about us?

We need to implement this bill, not only because it is the right thing to do and not only because Canadians want it, but because justice, with a capital J, natural justice, demands it. The fact that other people in the House do not see that is a shame and a reflection on them.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to this private member's bill, Bill C-232. While seemingly well-intentioned, this is legislation the government cannot support. Our primary responsibility is to keep Canadians safe. To do this, we rely on laws and policies that are based on what has been proven to work. We know that the effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders reduces recidivism and improves public safety.

Bill C-232 directly challenges this in a number of ways. First, it proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the CCRA, to require inmates who have been designated as dangerous offenders or who are convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder to be confined to a maximum-security penitentiary for the duration of their sentence. This would apply even if a sentence is finite, which would mean an offender is eventually released into the community.

The designation of an offender as maximum security is a necessary measure to maintain the safety and security of penitentiaries and to protect public safety. The decision to reclassify maximum-security inmates as medium security is made only after rigorous and thorough assessment of the offender's case-specific risk factors. This includes an inmate's history and any dangerous offender designation, offence severity, potential for violent behaviour, outstanding charges, security-related incidents and their progress while in custody. It is the product of several criteria and considerations that are consistent with the principles of ensuring the protection of society, staff members and offenders.

While considering all case-specific factors, the security level is also determined based on Correctional Service Canada's assessment of the required degree of supervision and control within the institution, referred to as institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety risk in the event of escape. I would like to stress that at any point, an inmate can be returned to a higher security level, if this is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the public or our institutions.

Research shows there are better public safety outcomes when an offender's rehabilitation is gradual and structured. Research shows this. However, maximum-security institutions offer fewer opportunities for rehabilitative programs, such as education, domestic violence, substance abuse treatment, and jobs and skills training. By limiting access to this programming and conditional release for certain offenders, the bill could compromise the safety of staff and other inmates within our facilities by creating a more volatile and less manageable institutional environment. It could also undermine effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration, as inmates will be less likely to have a gradual, supervised release into the community once they have completed their sentence. Bill C-232 would ultimately endanger public safety upon an offender's release, as they would be released with less preparation and fewer tools to be a productive member of society.

The bill also presents a significant charter concern, particularly given its application to current inmates. It would impact the prospects for conditional release for individuals already serving sentences under existing laws. This retrospective application challenges the fundamental principles of justice and fairness, with case law finding retrospective application in similar situations unconstitutional, in particular when punitive in nature. Our correctional system must operate within the bounds of the rule of law and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

I would also put forward to the House that we should be careful not to exacerbate the known issue of overrepresentation of indigenous and Black offenders at the maximum security level and within the criminal justice system overall. The Government of Canada understands that an equitable justice system is an effective justice system. That is why we continue to make major investments to address gaps in services to indigenous people and their overrepresentation throughout the criminal justice system.

I will state that the federal framework to reduce recidivism, launched in June 2022, was an important step by the Government of Canada. It is a plan that identifies crucial factors that impact why people reoffend and how to support safe and successful reintegration into the community.

Public Safety Canada and its portfolio organizations continue to support whole-of-government efforts to align legislation, programs, policies and initiatives with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The indigenous community corrections initiative was created in that spirit to provide culturally relevant services to healing, alternatives to incarceration and rehabilitation to indigenous offenders. We must continue taking steps to address the systemic issues within our justice system, and we cannot support a bill that would deepen these inequalities.

Finally, while private members' bills do not typically include funding attachments, Bill C-232 would have significant, unavoidable financial impacts. Mandating certain security classifications for specific offenders would necessitate long-term infrastructure costs, as existing facilities would need expansion or modification to accommodate the resulting population shifts. The government's position on Bill C-232 is clear. This bill would undermine public safety and be a step backward in correctional policy. It also raises serious legal and practical concerns that we cannot ignore.

Bill C-232 is a misguided approach that ignores the evidence of what works to keep Canadians safe. It threatens the safety of our institutions and communities, and it would undermine the very principles of justice that our correctional system is built upon. We must continue to support policies that are evidence-based, that respect the rule of law and that focus on the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into society.

Rehabilitation is not a gesture of leniency. It is a fundamental pillar of public safety. When an individual completes a sentence and is released, the most critical question is whether they return as a person who is equipped to contribute to society or as someone who will become a repeat offender. Since most incarcerated individuals will eventually be released, if we only focus on punishment without addressing what led to the behaviour, such as addiction, lack of education or mental health struggles, we are effectively choosing to put public safety at risk.

For all of these reasons, I urge my fellow hon. members to oppose—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-224 under Private Members' Business.