Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Status
Defeated, as of June 10, 2026
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-232.
Summary
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below.
Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-232 proposes amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to mandate that dangerous offenders and those convicted of multiple first-degree murders remain classified as maximum-security inmates, thereby restricting their transfer to medium-security facilities and repealing the "least restrictive environment" standard.
Conservative
Mandating maximum-security confinement: The party proposes that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned to maximum-security prisons, preventing high-profile criminals from being transferred to medium-security facilities.
Repealing least restrictive standards: Conservatives seek to repeal the Liberal government's least restrictive environment standard for inmate placement, arguing it has eroded the justice system and allowed violent offenders to access more lenient living conditions.
Prioritizing victims' rights: The party argues the current system is imbalanced and overly empathetic toward offenders. They contend that transferring notorious criminals revictimizes families and undermines public confidence in federal institutions.
Criticizing medium-security conditions: Members express outrage that notorious offenders in medium security can access amenities like hockey rinks and tennis courts, while living in open-concept environments that are inappropriate for the gravity of their crimes.
Bloc
Commitment to rehabilitation: The Bloc opposes mandatory sentences that could hinder rehabilitation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a justice system that evaluates inmates individually rather than applying broad, irrevocable security classifications.
Risk of wrongful convictions: Opposition is rooted in the fact that the bill could unfairly impact wrongfully convicted individuals, preventing the correction of judicial errors and potentially condemning innocent people to maximum-security conditions indefinitely.
Danger of single-case legislation: Members warn against drafting legislation motivated by a single high-profile offender, arguing that laws must be designed for broad, fair application across the entire correctional system rather than reacting to specific public outcries.
Supporting correctional officers: The party highlights the severe staff shortages and dangerous working conditions in federal penitentiaries, suggesting that the government should focus on supporting correctional officers and addressing security gaps like drone-smuggled contraband.
Liberal
Respect for judicial independence: The Liberals emphasize the importance of judicial independence and the professional authority of Correctional Service Canada to make independent, non-political determinations regarding inmate incarceration and security reclassifications.
Concerns over Conservative inconsistency: Lamoureux criticizes the Conservatives for reintroducing legislation that was previously rejected by most parties and points out their past failure to challenge similar offender reclassifications while they held government power.
Empathy for victims' families: The party recognizes the profound and lasting trauma experienced by families and communities affected by horrendous crimes, while arguing that such pain should not be used as a political tool for inconsistent policy.
