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

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

moved that Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber to debate this important legislation that would help restore Canadians' trust and confidence in our criminal justice system and in federal institutions like Correctional Service Canada.

Bill C-232, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is being debated today because I was inspired to bring this legislation forward after being approached by the loved ones of victims who were shocked and appalled to receive a phone call from CSC on May 29, 2023, about the transfer of serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison at Millhaven Institution in Ontario to a medium-security prison at La Macaza in Quebec.

This terrible decision by CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly not only shocked the country but appalled and revictimized the victims' families, friends and the communities I represent in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Bill C-232 is about doing what is right. It is about addressing and resolving a serious flaw in our criminal justice and corrections system that permits criminal monsters like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta, among others, to benefit and be allowed to transfer from a maximum-security institution to medium security.

This bill proposes to require that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum-security classification and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. It would also repeal the Liberals' least restrictive environment standard for assigning inmates to prison. This standard was adopted in 2018 under the Justin Trudeau government in Bill C-83.

In addition to repealing this weak policy, it would strengthen and restore the language of “only the necessary restrictions” that the previous Conservative government put in place when it passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012. In fact, that legislation, known as Bill C-10, was spearheaded by my predecessor, the Hon. Rob Nicholson, who proudly represented Niagara Falls for 24 years prior to his deserved retirement in 2019. Mr. Nicholson was the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada at the time.

Paul Bernardo is serving a life sentence as a dangerous offender for the horrific abduction, sexual assaults and murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. Bernardo was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years for stealing and ending the lives of two teenage girls who had their whole bright futures ahead of them. When he committed these atrocities, he also ruined the lives of their loved ones and sentenced them to a lifetime of inescapable pain, trauma and suffering.

So far, Bernardo has applied for parole three times, in 2018, 2021 and 2024. He has rightfully been denied each time. In his most recent parole hearing in November of 2024, Bernardo sought day parole at a halfway house or, at a minimum, escorted absences from prison so that he could attend a community program for sex offenders. He was denied both.

According to a CBC article, Tanya Nouwens, one of the members of a two-member parole panel, told Bernardo, “Although you have made progress, we are still placing a lot of weight on the clinical assessments, a lot of weight on the seriousness of your criminal behaviour. And for that reason, the board has determined today your risk would be undue”. While it was the right outcome, this quote is still concerning because it raises the question of progress.

I have to ask: Progress toward what end? Paul Bernardo is the worst of the worst. Let me be frank. He should never be granted parole, but after 10 years under the Liberal government's watch, Canada's justice and corrections system has been eroded and lost its balance. It has become far more one-sided and empathetic toward the offender and the consideration of the offender's care than the impacts on victims and victims' families and how law-abiding Canadians see, perceive and make sense of that system.

In fact, in a CBC article from June 2023, Benjamin Roebuck, the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, said the corrections system strikes the wrong balance between victims' rights and prisoners' privacy rights. In a quote from that article, he says, “The entire system is imbalanced...the victims are the ones who are most directly affected, who continue to suffer from the consequences”.

Mr. Roebuck further reinforced this view when he testified at the public safety committee in November 2023, in a study on the rights of victims of crime, reclassification and transfer of federal offenders. Mr. Roebuck informed committee members that:

We need supporting legislation and comparable resources....

We know that victims are not put first, and I'm not sure that people understand the importance of information to victims of crime.

The fact that these terrible criminals are judged to be progressing through Canada's corrections system while the voices of victims of crime are somehow sidelined and, in a way, silenced is concerning and should be shocking to us all.

This is a non-partisan issue. It is about doing what is right. Keeping dangerous offenders, serial killers and mass murderers like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta in a maximum-security prison is common sense. Simply put, there should have been no way that any of these criminals were ever downgraded and transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, yet on May 29, 2023, this is exactly what happened to Paul Bernardo.

The CSC decision to transfer Bernardo to a medium-security prison was met with immediate and harsh public outrage on a national scale. Locally, both the cities of St. Catharines and Thorold passed municipal resolutions requesting that Correctional Service Canada and the Liberal government act. In the motion adopted by the City of St. Catharines, it states:

...City Council request[s] that the Government of Canada review and consider legislation changes to ensure transparency in the corrections and parole system and examine the guidelines around moving dangerous offenders and sadistic psychopaths who have not exhibited any remorse, empathy or insight into their crimes into medium security prisons....

The mayor of Thorold also wrote and expressed this:

The gravity of Mr. Bernardo's crimes, and the devastating impact they had on the lives of innocent individuals and their families, cannot be understated. Our community, along with the wider Niagara region, continues to bear the scars left by these reprehensible actions. It is of utmost importance that we prioritize public safety and ensure that those who pose a significant risk to society are appropriately confined and monitored.

I could not agree more. Decades since these heinous crimes were committed, the nightmares and scars from the terror still linger in the communities they impacted in St. Catharines, as well as in the Niagara communities that I represent in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The Liberal government must answer these questions. Why are these prison transfers happening? Why are they benefiting Canada's most evil criminals and to what end? Is it the desire of the Liberal government to continue the progression of these dangerous offenders, serial killers and mass murderers until they are transferred to minimum-security prison or until they are granted parole or lesser conditions?

Surely the Liberal government does not believe that the likes of Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta should continue to be downgraded until they are out of the corrections system, or does it?

The Canadian justice and corrections system must be rebalanced to support law-abiding Canadians and victims of crime. That needs to be the goal, and Bill C-232 will help restore this balance, as well as the confidence of Canadians in their federal institutions. These CSC decisions to transfer dangerous offenders and mass murderers from maximum-security prison to medium-security prison undermines public confidence, erodes public trust and raises serious questions and debate about who the justice system serves and prioritizes: the victims, as it should, or the criminal.

Canadians know something is wrong when even CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly, the person responsible for these transfers, conceded this about Bernardo. She said, “The fact that he is at a medium-security institution does not negate the fact that he is a psychopath, and that he committed horrific and unspeakable crimes”.

There is also the former public safety minister's own reaction to the news about Bernardo's transfer. He was quoted by CBC as saying, “as a former federal prosecutor and as a Canadian...I was profoundly concerned and again shocked by this decision”. This was a quote from the former minister who was in charge. It does not come as a surprise then that shortly after this national debacle, Minister Mendicino was dropped by Justin Trudeau from cabinet.

Canadians are in disbelief about this whole thing. These comments are from the people who hold authority. They are the ones Canadians expect to run and competently manage Canada's corrections system and institutions like CSC to ensure and uphold public safety. Despite their own acknowledgements of how bad Paul Bernardo is, they carried on and moved forward as if nothing had happened and continue to allow these types of transfers to occur.

The new Liberal Minister of Public Safety has failed to take any action, and the same CSC commissioner has failed to reverse her decisions. Last week, the government announced she is leaving her role and will be replaced. Canadians will be watching closely to see what actions the new commissioner takes, or fails to take, in their new role.

The person who first contacted me and asked that I get involved to help on this issue was a close friend of one of Paul Bernardo's victims. Her name is Marcia Penner. In a letter she wrote to CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly, and I think she speaks for all Canadians, she stated:

Please help me understand how someone such as Paul Bernardo can be housed in a facility such as this. One of Canada’s most notorious killers. A psychopathic serial rapist. A designated DANGEROUS OFFENDER. Does any of this mean anything? I can only imagine the prisoners remaining in maximum security penitentiaries must be asking the same question. If someone who commits the worst of the worst crimes doesn’t qualify for the harshest conditions, then who does?

Marcia is right, and Bill C-232 is the solution to fix this major problem and do what is ultimately right. Bill C-232 also complements a larger Conservative effort, through several private members' bills, to combat the out-of-control crime wave Canadians are facing after a decade of bad Liberal policies that weakened our federal institutions like the CSC.

The Liberal government now talks about implementing needed justice reforms. Sadly, these reforms are required to fix the problems the Liberals created when they weakened provisions of previous Conservative legislation through bills such as Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-83. There is hope. Two of my colleagues' bills, Bill C-243 and Bill C-242, resume their second reading debates soon. I am encouraged to see that both Bill C-225 and Bill C-221 have passed second reading and have been referred to committee for further study and consideration by parliamentarians. I am hopeful that Bill C-232 will follow suit and receive the widespread support of my hon. colleagues to reach committee as well.

Enough is enough. It is time we start rebalancing the corrections system to weigh victims' considerations more strongly, restore Canadians' trust and confidence in our federal institutions and return dangerous offenders and mass murderers like Paul Bernardo, Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Luka Magnotta to maximum-security prisons where they rightly belong. With the support of colleagues in the House, we can make this happen. We can respond to the calls from our constituents, communities and, more importantly, the families of those victims of crime.

I stand in my place today because I made a promise to see what I could do to help correct a horribly wrong decision made by the government. I ask my colleagues to support this effort. Working together, we can accomplish great things and do so in memory of those so tragically lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that we had a Conservative member bring forward Bill C-351, which is, in essence, the same as Bill C-232. At that time, there was a debate and ultimately a vote. We saw members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party, the New Democratic Party and, I believe, even the member from the Green Party vote against the legislation.

Can the member give a clear indication as to what the actual difference is between the two pieces of legislation? Has he received support from any of those political entities with respect to this current version?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this place because I am responding to the concerns that were expressed to me by the families and friends of the victims in my community. They asked that we take steps to fix the flawed legislation from Bill C-83; to make the changes found in my legislation, Bill C-232; and to restore wording of the previous legislation, which the government removed and added the wording “least restrictive environment” when it comes to prison selection.

We are going to go back to the previous wording that worked in the Conservative legislation: “only the necessary restrictions”. That change needs to be made. We also need to designate dangerous offenders and murderers who murder multiple people as receiving a maximum-security classification and designation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague who is affected and who is using his privilege to introduce a bill that affects him and his constituents. However, when a member introduces a bill, it cannot be tailored to one specific case. It has to be designed with society as a whole in mind, and it must apply to a broad group.

Unless I missed something, I did not hear my colleague mention the possibility of miscarriages of justice, for example. We know that mistakes are made. We know that there are people who have been convicted of murder and who have served their sentences only to later be acquitted. This happened to one inmate in Quebec after 18 years.

Is my colleague's bill too restrictive? Would applying it to all cases, in a more broad and general way, cause problems for the justice system?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two provisions. The bill is about changing the wording with regard to “least restrictive environment” and going back to the previous Conservative wording. It also would designate people who are dangerous offenders and those who commit multiple murders as having a maximum-security classification so they serve their time in maximum security rather than medium security. It is about designating the worst of the worst, the people who have committed the most heinous of crimes, and ensuring that they serve their sentence in a maximum-security institution, where they belong.

[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 on an issue about which I am very passionate. One of the reasons is that I actually worked in the federal correctional system, which is completely germane to the bill.

I want to respond to something the member for Winnipeg North said. In all candour, I have not heard a single Liberal speak today apart from the member, and I have been in the House throughout the day. There are other Liberals here, six or seven of them in the House right now, yet we cannot—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member knows he cannot note the absence or presence of members in the House. I am going to ask him to very quickly get to the point of his question so I can give the member time to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I did not say who was or was not here.

At the end of the day, here is the problem: The member is talking about who on the Liberal side did not vote for this. As Conservatives, we take our instructions from the people who sent us here. The Liberals can say all they want about not supporting this and that it is never going to pass. Why should we be taking our instructions from the member for Winnipeg North and not the people of Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake has time for a brief response.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said this earlier in my remarks: I stand in my place today putting forward this legislation because I made a promise to my constituents to listen and respond to their concerns and to take action to ensure that monsters like Paul Bernardo serve their sentence in a maximum-security institution, where they rightly belong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite is very pleased I have taken the opportunity to rise to address this piece of legislation, even though with his presence in the chamber one has to question his level of alertness. If he were actually following the debate today, he would know that numerous Liberal members of Parliament stood up not only to address the issues of the day but also to ask questions.

[An. hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr Speaker, if the member maybe just paid a bit more attention, for example, right now as he is heckling across the way, he would probably have a better understanding of what actually is taking place inside the House.

Let me make a suggestion. I believe the member was making reference to taking instructions from the people who sent us here. We will find that this is in fact something all members, I would like to think, do, whether they are a Liberal, a Conservative, a New Democrat, or whatever political entity one might be from.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member who continues to want to heckle me that the people I represent in Winnipeg North understand how important it is to respect the issue of judicial independence. Judicial independence is a shared responsibility between different levels of government, and I would suggest that even when we deal with incarceration and with Correctional Service Canada, which makes the determinations, I believe Canadians fully understand and respect that.

I see that the member is having a very difficult time appreciating what I am saying. I will get a bit more into it for the member opposite, so he should stay tuned and be alert, and he might actually learn something here.

Let me first express what is a very difficult thing to do: to recognize the pain that has been experienced by family and friends of victims, who have had to go through trials of all different forms as a direct result of a horrendous crime that has been committed. One can only imagine how a parent of a child who has been raped, molested and then murdered is affected. We could factor in a serial killer. It affects not only the family; it also affects the community, and I would suggest it affects the country.

People can understand just how horrendous it is. Sadly, in society, whether it is Canada or virtually any other nation, these crime take place. I for one cannot believe, or I find it very hard to understand, unless one has lived that experience first-hand, just how difficult it is, especially for a parent. I do not think one can ever recover from an incident of losing a child, whatever the age of that child might be, because of the type of horrendous crimes we are talking about.

It was a number of years ago that the Conservatives raised during question period the whole McClintic ordeal, another horrific incident that had taken place in Canada. It actually dealt with the same type of issue. All we need to do is check Hansard, and we will read about Conservative after Conservative standing in his or her place, talking about it in a very graphic way, in great detail. I tended to disagree with that, and I would hope that if someone does the research and looks back, they would find that I was consistent with my comments.

It continued day after day until Ralph Goodale took the floor and pointed out a very important observation. I would like to quote Ralph Goodale in a speech that he gave here in the House. This is important because it goes back to 2014. The government of the day was under Stephen Harper, with whom the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. Ralph Goodale stood up on October 2, 2018, and said:

Mr. Speaker, Tori Stafford's brutal death in 2009 was a horrible, gut-wrenching crime for her family, but for the whole country too.

The killer, McClintic, was reclassified as medium security in 2014. The government of that day did not challenge that decision. In fact, McClintic remains in a medium-security correctional facility today.

I want people to realize that a member of the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party itself, attempted to bring forward the legislation, in essence, previously. It was voted against by all political entities except for the Conservative Party, which included the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals. The Conservatives are reintroducing, in essence, the same legislation.

I point out what Ralph Goodale said, because back then, when today's leader of the Conservative Party had an opportunity and he sat around the cabinet table, why did the Conservatives not contest the decision in that situation? I think it is a valid question to be asking.

At the end of the day, Hansard is there. The Conservatives can read it. I do not think we do a service to the chamber by continuing to build up some sort of an expectation that if they were in government, they would implement the legislation, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table and did not do so. If we take a look at the decision, we see that Correctional Service Canada makes the decisions to transfer and reclassify, as it did in 2014, when the leader of the Conservative Party said nothing. As a result—

[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.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-232, introduced by my friend and colleague the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, yet I do so with a deep sense of frustration because this legislation should not be necessary. Canada should have resolved this issue years ago.

In my riding of Niagara South lies Lake Gibson, in the city of Thorold. Every time I cross the bridge over that water, I think of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. I cannot cross it without remembering that that lake is where Paul Bernardo discarded the remains of two innocent young girls after subjecting them to unimaginable cruelty. The horror of those crimes is impossible to adequately express. For those of us who lived through that dark chapter in Niagara, the memory has never faded. It remains etched in the consciousness of our communities.

That is why Canadians were outraged when, on May 29, 2023, Correctional Service Canada quietly transferred Paul Bernardo, a serial rapist, a sadistic torturer and a convicted murderer, from Millhaven Institution, a maximum-security penitentiary, to a minimum-security institution in rural Quebec. The families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy learned of that decision only hours before it became public. There was no consultation, no meaningful explanation and no consideration for the anguish it would reopen. Their lawyer, Tim Danson, described the families as devastated. He said the transfer forced them to relive the worst moments of their lives all over again.

Canadians across the country shared that outrage. Political leaders from every corner of this country condemned the decision. That unanimity mattered because it revealed something fundamental about Canadians: that regardless of political affiliation, most Canadians instinctively understood that the most dangerous and predatory offenders belong in maximum-security institutions. It is not out of vengeance or emotion but because justice, public safety and moral clarity demand it.

Despite the national outrage, nothing has changed. Paul Bernardo remains in medium security to this day. Every time I cross that bridge at Lake Gibson, I am reminded that while Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy lost their lives forever, the man who destroyed them now benefits from conditions that Canadians overwhelmingly believe are wholly inappropriate. That reality is not merely disappointing. It is profoundly shameful.

Paul Bernardo is not simply a convicted murderer. He is a designated dangerous offender, a classification reserved for the most violent and persistently threatening individuals in Canadian society. Parliament created that designation precisely because certain offenders demonstrate such enduring brutality and such a high likelihood of future violence that extraordinary measures are justified to protect the public. Dangerous offender designations are not applied casually. They are rare. They carry indeterminate sentences because the courts recognize that these individuals cannot safely be trusted outside the strictest controls.

What do these assessments continue to tell us about Paul Bernardo? A spousal risk assessment conducted in 2014 concluded that he posed a high probability of violence toward intimate partners and continued risk toward others. Clinical evaluations conducted decades into his incarceration identified ongoing psychological concerns and only intermittent progress. Experts concluded that he demonstrated little genuine rehabilitation and limited acceptance of and responsibility for his crimes.

When Bernardo appeared before the Parole Board in 2024, parole was denied for a third time. The board cited the extreme violence of his offences, the serial nature of his crimes, his narcissistic personality traits and persistent concerns surrounding sexual recidivism. Correctional Service Canada itself has repeatedly opposed his release. Even the commissioner of CSC reportedly acknowledged that Bernardo continues to exhibit psychopathic characteristics. This is the offender whom our system deemed appropriate for medium security.

At the centre of this controversy lies the principle within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that requires inmates to be managed in the “least restrictive environment” consistent with public safety and institutional management. In principle, rehabilitation is an important goal of corrections policy. Canadians believe in rehabilitation where rehabilitation is genuinely possible, but that principle was never intended to be interpreted mechanically or blindly. It was never designed for sadistic sexual predators whose crimes rank among the worst in Canadian history and whose risk assessments continue to raise profound alarms decades later.

The dangerous offender designation represents Parliament's clearest declaration that certain individuals pose a uniquely persistent threat. Under the current system, however, that judicial finding can effectively be diluted through an administrative reclassification process driven by incremental behaviour metrics inside prison walls. That contradiction is precisely why Bill C‑232 is necessary.

Tim Danson articulated this powerfully when he stated that sentencing reflects society's moral values and that prison placement must reflect those same values. Canadians understand intuitively that there are some crimes so monstrous, some offenders so dangerous and some harms so permanent that the only proportionate response is the highest level of confinement our correctional system can provide.

This debate is not solely about offender management. It is also about the victims. For more than three decades, Debbie Mahaffy and Donna French have carried unimaginable grief. They have endured repeated parole hearings, legal battles, media attention and a consistent reopening of wounds that truly never heal. Their courage has been extraordinary, yet even after all these years, the system continues to place new burdens on them.

In 2024, because Bernardo had been moved to a medium-security institution, logistical implications initially prevented the mothers from appearing in person at the parole hearing. Tim Danson described their reaction as “gut-wrenching”. He called it a devastating setback for victims' rights and an insult to the families who have already endured more suffering than most Canadians could imagine, and he was correct.

There is a direct relationship between where dangerous offenders are housed and the rights available to victims. Prison placement affects access, participation, security arrangements and the ability of victims' families to confront the individuals responsible for their suffering. Friends of and advocates for Kristen French testified before a parliamentary committee that the system appeared to prioritize Bernardo's administrative rights over the rights of victims and survivors. Many Canadians believe they were right to say so.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights guarantees victims the right to information, protection and meaningful participation in the justice system. Those principles cannot simply disappear when correctional classifications are reviewed behind closed doors. Bill C‑232 recognizes the reality by explicitly connecting victims' rights to decisions regarding the placement of dangerous offenders.

Correctional Service Canada later reviewed Bernardo's transfer and concluded that the process had complied with the existing law and policy. It simultaneously acknowledged that the family should have received better notification. Those two conclusions are deeply revealing. If a process can be technically compliant while still producing an outcome that shocks the conscience of the nation, then the problem is no longer merely administrative. The problem is legislative. The law itself requires reform.

Kristen French was 15 years old. Leslie Mahaffy was 14 years old. Their lives were stolen through acts of calculated evil that horrified an entire country. Decades later, their mothers are still fighting for dignity, for accountability and for a justice system that fully recognizes the magnitude of what was taken from them. Meanwhile, the offender responsible resides in a medium-security institution. Canadians know instinctively that this is wrong.

The moral argument behind Bill C‑232 is not complicated. These are offenders whose crimes demonstrate such enduring depravity, such profound danger and such catastrophic harm that maximum security is not only appropriate but necessary, not temporarily, and not symbolically, but for as long as the threat posed continues to exist.

Now is the time for our laws to reflect that reality consistently and unequivocally. We have a moral obligation to ensure that the most dangerous offenders in Canada remain behind maximum-security walls, commensurate with the horrific violence they inflicted upon innocent people.

I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation. Let this Parliament send a clear and unmistakable message that Canada will never lose sight of its duty to victims, its obligation to public safety and its responsibility to ensure that the most dangerous criminals face the most secure confinement our justice system can provide.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority for our government. Indeed, it is a top priority that is shared by all members of the House.

Bill C-232 proposes new rules that would require dangerous offenders and those convicted of more than one first-degree murder to spend their entire sentence in a maximum-security environment. The bill maintains that doing so would support public safety.

Our government stands with victims and all Canadians who want to keep our communities safe. We understand and appreciate the intent behind the legislation. That said, we believe the approach proposed in the bill has significant shortcomings.

Firstly, the bill contradicts the very purpose and principles of the federal correctional system and its mandate to effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders. The vast majority of offenders re-enter society after serving their sentences. The goal is to ensure that they do so as law-abiding, productive members of our communities. Punishment alone does not make our communities safer. We must also focus on rehabilitation.

The current Corrections and Conditional Release Act is carefully designed to balance punishment, public safety and the eventual reintegration of offenders. The act is designed to ensure that an offender's transfer to medium or minimum security only occurs when they no longer pose an undue risk to society and where they can be safely managed.

All transfer decisions are based on comprehensive professional assessments by case management teams, psychiatrists and security professionals. Bill C-232 would undermine the expertise of our corrections professionals and tie the hands of those responsible for managing these offenders. Maximum-security institutions are, by necessity, highly restrictive environments focused primarily on containment. They offer fewer opportunities for offenders to access the programs required, such as education, domestic violence and substance abuse treatment, and job and skills training, to address their criminality.

Based on years of evidence, we know that access to these programs is a proven tool for reforming criminal behaviour. Programs like these are more readily available in minimum-security institutions. By keeping offenders in maximum security longer than necessary, we are preventing offenders with determinate sentences from getting the treatment and skills training they need to re-enter society safely upon their release.

In other words, by mandating that offenders remain in maximum security regardless of their behaviour, programming success or reduction in risk, we would, in fact, achieve the very opposite of the stated purpose of the bill. Keeping offenders in maximum-security prisons does not mean that they will never re-enter society. It means that we are failing in our responsibilities to ensure that offenders are effectively rehabilitated and able to safely reintegrate when they eventually re-enter the community.

Under Bill C-232, we would, in effect, be less safe because individuals would go directly from maximum security to release into the community without any chance of rehabilitation. Furthermore, limiting access to the programs that offenders require to address their criminality would ultimately make our institutions less safe. It could create increased tension, anger and behavioural issues that would lead to more violence in our prisons. This would also put staff and those who work in these environments at risk.

The government is also concerned that Bill C-232 would be likely to exacerbate the experience of indigenous people in maximum security. It would further limit their access to culturally appropriate interventions and programming, as well as conditional releases. Furthermore, the bill would create significant charter concerns because of its application to current inmates and its ability to negatively impact their prospects for conditional release.

An offender's classification must be a dynamic process, not a static label that is assigned at the time of their sentencing.

Let me be clear: Our government agrees that we need tough sentences for violent criminals. Indeed, when individuals have committed serious crimes, they must serve their time. The bill makes for catchy sound bites and clips, but our responsibility to Canadians is to pursue policies that will actually make our communities safer. Evidence has shown that effective rehabilitation and reintegration programming are an essential part of ensuring public safety.

Under the existing system, an offender is placed in maximum security when they pose a threat to the public, to staff or to the security of the institution, and they remain there until their risk factors are mitigated. Objective risk assessments must first prove it is safe before any easing of restrictions can occur. Even then, they occur gradually and are closely monitored.

Bill C-232 would make our communities less safe, because it puts political will ahead of evidence of what works most effectively to increase public safety. Canadians deserve better. For those reasons, I urge all members to vote against Bill C-232.

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

Mr. Speaker, rehabilitation and social reintegration are foundational features of the Canadian correctional system. People commit various crimes, some more serious than others. The goal is always to put these individuals behind bars. Part of the reason for that is punishment, but there is also considerable emphasis on rehabilitation to ensure that, when they are released from prison, they are less dangerous than when they entered. Rehabilitation and social reintegration are the hallmarks of a successful correctional system.

As I was saying, an inmate who is released without having been rehabilitated poses a significant risk to society. With few exceptions, these people always get out of prison eventually. Some die behind bars, but the vast majority are released from prison at some point. What we want is for them to be as harmless as possible at that time. Rehabilitation is therefore essential.

I am not a social worker or a criminologist, and I do not have the expertise to discuss the merits of rehabilitation or the best way to rehabilitate someone. However, I believe that weekends of freedom, after which people have to return to the institution, along with vocational training and all those other measures, are part of a comprehensive set of initiatives designed to help rehabilitate individuals and help them reintegrate into society at the end of their sentence.

The bill seeks to increase the security classification for certain crimes. We can agree that these are some of the most serious crimes. However, the consequence of this is that these individuals will not be able to benefit from adequate rehabilitation measures. In a way, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing this.

I understand that this bill stems from a number of cases that are, quite frankly, scandals. These cases shocked almost everybody. I am thinking of Paul Bernardo and Luka Rocco Magnotta, who committed heinous crimes. Reacting to these crimes is a normal human response. However, I think that, as legislators, we must be careful not to pass laws simply in response to scandalous cases that are condemned by just about everyone in society. Laws must apply to society as a whole and not become a type of revenge or protection in the face of isolated cases that should be relatively rare.

I am not just talking about Paul Bernardo or Luka Rocco Magnotta. There are other cases as well. I am thinking of Claude Paquin, who was acquitted in 2024 in connection with two murders for which he had been found guilty 41 years earlier. This person spent 41 years in prison unnecessarily. There is also the case of Daniel Jolivet, who was convicted of four murders. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions recently stated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. This person also spent many years in prison.

It is not easy, and I do not blame the system. I understand that nothing is perfect. We all dream of perfect justice, which would penalize only criminals and free all innocent people. However, that justice would be neither human nor possible. We have to accept that there will always be a certain number of errors to deal with.

If we admit that there will be a certain number of errors and acknowledge the system's weakness in isolated cases, I think it is best to try to get the most conclusive results. It is important to ensure that the reaction is not to penalize two or three specific individuals. It is important to ensure that our system makes it possible to rehabilitate people who have been found guilty. The system has to make it so that society is a safer place when these people get out of prison, since they are no longer in the same state of mind as when they went in.

Security classifications are currently assigned based on an inmate's behaviour. An inmate who behaves well in prison may have their security classification adjusted to reflect that good behaviour. This can allow them to be released on weekends. It can open up certain opportunities for them and contribute to their rehabilitation, as I mentioned earlier.

When it comes to granting parole or conditional release, professional expertise is available. Criminologists and many other professionals can testify before the Parole Board of Canada to explain which areas an individual needs to work on and whether or not they should be released. This process, which involves adjusting security classifications based on the inmate's good behaviour and relying on professional expertise before deciding how and when to release them, is one of the strengths of our justice system. It contributes to the rehabilitation of convicts, which in turn assures us that, when they are released from prison, they will be better off than when they went in.

There is another issue that I wanted to address. My Liberal colleague mentioned it earlier. What Bill C-232 seeks to do could well be deemed unconstitutional if it were to be challenged in court. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. In this case, could designating an individual as a maximum security offender and taking away pretty much all hope of ever getting out of prison not be considered cruel and unusual punishment? I think it could be. I think that this bill leans too heavily on the punitive aspects of our justice system, and the risk is significant. If the Supreme Court has to strike down these provisions on constitutional grounds, Charter grounds, we would likely end up in a worse situation than we are in already.

The Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the victims of these monsters, and I believe that monsters is the right word. They committed heinous crimes. I do not know anyone who would condone these crimes. We stand in solidarity with these victims, but we want to avoid falling into the trap where we throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. There are isolated cases of individuals that we have to deal with, and we are already dealing with them. I think that the justice system ensures that these people are detained and prevents them from becoming a danger to the public. However, we must not build the entire body of Canadian legislation around these isolated cases.

We denounce criminals, we condemn them, we support victims and we stand in solidarity with them, but we refuse to embark on a legal process based on revenge. That would be misguided. As far as I am concerned, rehabilitation and the social reintegration of people who have committed crimes is the path we must continue to follow. That path can be improved, though. I agree. I think there is a lack of statistics on rehabilitation, for example. Do the measures taken in prison to rehabilitate inmates and ensure their reintegration into society have a positive effect or not? It is unclear. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have questioned numerous experts about this issue on numerous occasions. We have too few statistics. That aspect of our prison system could benefit from further study; it could probably be improved.

Let us stay on the right path that we have set out on, work to improve that path and avoid falling into the trap of revenge, which would only hurt us.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to debate an absolutely crucial piece of legislation that seeks to restore justice to Canada's correctional services system. It would ensure the most dangerous offenders and mass murderers receive the punishment they absolutely deserve.

I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, for introducing this bill, an act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This legislation is a common-sense response to growing concerns among Canadians that after 11 years of the Liberal government, our justice system is failing them and their families.

In May 2023, under the Liberal government, Correctional Services Canada transferred convicted serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security prison. As many would know, Bernardo is the monster responsible for the abduction and deaths of Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka and the assault of dozens of innocent women. For the friends, families and communities of the victims, his release from maximum security was a traumatizing injustice.

Sadly, after over a decade of Liberal weak-on-crime laws, this is not an isolated incident. It is simply a sad pattern. Sadistic sex killer Luka Magnotta; the brutal murderer of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty; serial rapist Russell Williams; and convicted triple murderers Dellen Millard and Mark Smich are to name a few.

All these criminals are the worst of the worst, dangerous offenders who the Liberals have allowed to be released from maximum- and transferred to medium-security prisons. While there, they enjoy the comforts of hockey rinks, tennis courts, television and movies, while their victims' families grieve and bravely remember their loved ones every single day. They truly receive a life sentence.

This is precisely why Bill C‑232 is so important. The bill would amend the release act to require that dangerous offenders and those convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be assigned to maximum-security prisons. It marks a step toward a balanced justice system.

The legislation would make two meaningful changes. First, it would bring back just, proportional language to the act. Bill C‑232 would reinstate the legal standard for prison assignments as “only the necessary restrictions” language that was successfully implemented under the Harper government in 2012.

Of course, in 2019, the Liberals had to gut that. Bill C‑83 amended the legal standard to be the least restrictive environment. When asked about the impact of this weak standard, the former director general of the corrections and criminal justice directorate at Public Safety Canada said, “The Conservatives are absolutely right. Of course it contributed to Mr. Bernardo's transfer, because it is a principle that underlies all decisions...a fundamental one.” Reversing the detrimental impact of Bill C‑83 is crucial to rebalancing the Liberals' crooked sentencing regime.

Second, Bill C‑232 would make it absolutely mandatory for dangerous offenders like Bernardo, Millard, Smich, Magnotta and Rafferty to be sentenced to maximum-security institutions. Sadly, only 13% of dangerous offenders in Canada are currently housed in maximum-security prisons.

In 2023, of the 736 classified dangerous offenders in our country, 580 of them were classified to medium-security environments. Nearly 90% of dangerous offenders are currently housed in minimum-security or medium-security prisons.

In November 2025, Dellen Millard, the convicted triple murderer of his father, Laura Babcock and Tim Bosma, was transferred from a maximum- to medium-security prison. I echo Tim Bosma's family's question: “If a three-time convicted 1st degree murderer is rewarded for ‘good behaviour’ in the Canadian penal system and moved to a lower security prison, who then is filling the maximum security prisons? White collar criminals?” It does not add up.

On this side of the House, Conservatives are listening. Bill C‑232 is a response to the outrageous pattern of loose security classifications from the CSC. Police and victim advocates recognize this bill as a long-overdue step towards victim protection and bringing back confidence in our justice system. Niagara Regional Police Service Chief Bill Fordy sees every day the impact of violent crime on our victims and communities and the value of these discussions. Police and law enforcement officials across Canada understand the importance of building back a justice system that Canadians can trust.

Alicia Googoo, a survivor of childhood violence and founder of the advocacy organization, Our Heart on Our Sleeve, understands the risks of failing to take dangerous offenders seriously. She urged Parliament to act, saying that public safety and accountability “have consequences for real children, families and survivors.”

When Paul Bernardo was transferred in 2023, members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers in Quebec and Ontario were baffled by the decision, calling on the Liberal government to make a change. It did not. Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims' families, was clear that “legislative refinement” is warranted when it comes to Canada's most dangerous offenders, yet time and time again these Liberals ignore Canadians' call to action. The Liberals claim to be tough on crime, but they repeatedly support legislation that hollows out our justice system and prioritizes offenders' rights over victims' rights.

Bill C‑14 would preserve the principle of restraint that allows violent offenders to walk free and terrorize their communities. Bill C‑16 introduces a mandatory minimum safety valve, fundamentally undermining the deterrence and denunciation of MMPs and essentially handing criminals a “get out of jail free” card.

What is more, the Liberals claim to have changed, but the truth is that they are the exact same Liberals with the exact same policies as the past 11 years. When Bernardo was released from maximum-security prison, the Liberal public safety minister at the time absolved himself of responsibility. He claimed to have no idea the transfer was coming, which no one believed, and absolutely failed to remedy the impact of this decision for Canadians. Thanks to relentless pressure from the Conservatives, the minister was shuffled out of cabinet, surely for this decision, yet the decision itself was never reversed. After that, the disgraced minister went on to be rewarded as the current Prime Minister's chief of staff. The Liberals now have an opportunity to finally reverse course. By supporting this legislation, the government could finally mean it when the Liberals say they have changed, that it is a new Liberal government and they want to keep Canadians safe.

In 2022, homicides reached the highest rate in 30 years. In January 2026, an Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians believe crime has been rising in their communities over the last five years and do not feel safe. Now more than ever, we must protect our communities, safeguard victims' rights and stand up against the most evil offenders in the system. In the words of Marcia Penner, Kristen French's childhood friend, to Bernardo's accomplice, “You will never win. Kristen, Leslie, and Tammy win. Their memories are very much alive and will be forever.... These girls will always be remembered, loved, and cherished.” Bill C‑232 exists to protect those memories.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we resume debate, I will just remind members that when they are in the chamber, they are required to wear a jacket. Even if it is getting a little toasty in here, jackets are still required in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up, my childhood home backed onto a ravine. It sat near the end of a long street, with no houses for the first few hundred metres. In the winter, I would get off the bus in the dark and walk that stretch home alone.

As a teenager, every sound felt sharp and every shadow felt close, because I knew, thanks to the nightly news, that there was a man out there attacking girls like me. They called him the “Scarborough Rapist.” I lived in North York, but the ravines are all connected. I was terrified, even as I tried not to show it. I learned to be careful, to hurry home, to put my key between my fingers, to watch behind me and to never assume that I was safe.

Paul Bernardo never touched me. I never met him. However, he was truly one of the monsters of my childhood. His heinous crimes destroyed families and changed the way a generation of girls moved through the world. He taught us fear before we even had the words to explain it. If my heart rate goes up and if my stomach tightens when I think of Paul Bernardo in a medium-security prison, I cannot imagine how the families of the young women and girls he raped, tortured and murdered feel about it. For them, this is not an abstract fear. It is a gaping wound that never closes.

Today, I rise in strong support of Bill C-232, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, brought forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake. This bill is clear, modest and necessary. It says that when an offender has been found by a court to be a dangerous offender or when an offender has been convicted of more than one first-degree murder, that person will be classified as maximum security and will remain in a maximum-security penitentiary or a maximum-security area of the penitentiary. This should not be controversial.

In fact, most Canadians I speak to are shocked to learn that it is not already the law. It would have been, except that in 2019, these Liberals passed Bill C-83, which legally requires Correctional Service Canada to place an inmate in the penitentiary that provides the least restrictive environment for that person. While CSC can consider the offender's current institutional behaviour, escape risk, public safety risk if they escape and program participation, it cannot ask whether an offender's crimes are so monstrous that maximum security should be permanent.

If the offender behaves in prison, they are assessed as manageable. If officials conclude they do not currently need maximum control, they can be reclassified. That is how a person can commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and still be moved down to medium security. CSC did not violate the law when it moved Paul Bernardo to medium security. Following public outrage over Mr. Bernardo's transfer, a review concluded the transfer was sound, and followed both law and policy. That means that law and policy are the problem here.

We have to be honest about what prison behaviour can and cannot tell us. Often, the most dangerous offenders are not dangerous because they cannot control themselves; they are dangerous because they can. They can be patient, they can be charming and they can follow rules when it benefits them. We have heard all of this at committee. A clean institutional record does not erase sadism, predation or the court's finding that a person is a dangerous offender, but it can get the move to medium security.

For victims' families, this is unbearable. These families sit through trials, they hear the evidence, they mourn daughters, sisters and friends, and they learn how they were tortured, raped and killed. They live with a life sentence of grief. They cannot unhear what they hear in those courtrooms. Then they learn that the offender has been moved to a lower-security institution, because the focus has shifted from the horror of the offence to the offender's current institutional score. That is not justice, as most Canadians understand it.

Let us be clear about what maximum security means here. It is not about revenge, and it is not cruelty or a rejection of basic human rights. It is a recognition that some offenders have crossed a line so grave that public safety, public confidence and respect for victims demand it.

A dangerous offender designation is one of the most serious findings a Canadian court can make. It is reserved for offenders who have shown a pattern of serious violence, sexual violence or conduct so brutal that they pose an ongoing threat to the public. Likewise, first-degree murder is planned and deliberate, and it falls into the most serious categories of homicide known in our laws. A person convicted of more than one first-degree murder has not made a tragic mistake. That person has taken multiple lives with intent.

Bill C-232 would draw an important line that says dangerous offenders and offenders convicted of more than one first-degree murder must be assigned a maximum-security classification and they must be confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or a maximum-security area of a penitentiary. It would ensure that these offenders are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences. This bill would clearly tell Correctional Service Canada that for a very narrow class of the worst offenders, including household names such as Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich, maximum security is not optional; it is mandatory.

Since being elected, I have spent more time than I ever thought I would with grieving families. I am stunned by the scope and scale of violence against women and girls in this country. I had no idea of the extent to which the Liberal government had tipped the scales in favour of offenders, leaving victims and their families to be traumatized and retraumatized. I am against telling women and girls, or their families, that the people who terrorized them, hunted them, raped them or murdered them can one day be managed in a less restrictive environment because enough time has passed or they are playing well with others behind bars.

I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake for bringing this bill forward. He has done something important. He has taken the outrage that Canadians feel over cases like those of Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich, who, to the best of my knowledge, all remain in medium-security correctional environments today, and turned it into a practical, legal response. That is what we were sent here to do.

Just this weekend, while at home, I met with a woman who spoke to me about violence, fear and the need for leaders to take domestic violence and violence against children and women seriously. I made her a promise that I would stand up in this place, use my voice and not allow these issues to be softened, buried or explained away by bureaucratic language and fancy legal concepts. Today, by supporting Bill C-232, I am keeping that promise, because violence against women is not an abstraction and violence against children is not a talking point. These are wounds carried by families, communities and survivors who need to know that people in this place are prepared to act.

Bill C-232 would not undo the evil committed by Bernardo, Smich, Magnotta and others, whose names Canadians invoke with horror, nor would it bring back Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French, Laura Babcock, Tim Bosma, Jun Lin or any other victim, but it would say that some crimes are so grave and some offenders are so dangerous that maximum security means maximum security. It would also say to every woman, parent, survivor and grieving family watching this debate that their fear is not irrational, their grief is not forgotten and their Parliament has a duty to stand with them.

I urge every member of the House to support Bill C-232.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House today to speak to legislation that would help restore Canadians' confidence in our criminal justice system and the institutions responsible for keeping our communities safe.

My colleague from Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake introduced Bill C-232 after hearing directly from the loved ones of victims who were stunned and outraged by a phone call they received from the Correctional Service of Canada, which informed them that Paul Bernardo, a convicted serial killer and rapist, was being transferred from a maximum-security institution in Ontario to a medium-security institution in Quebec. Like many Canadians, they could not understand how such a decision could be made. They felt betrayed by a system that seemed to place the interests of dangerous offenders ahead of the rights, concerns and dignity of the victims and their families.

The legislation is about accountability, transparency and ensuring that victims are never treated as an afterthought. Canadians deserve to have the confidence that our justice system puts public safety first and respects those who have suffered the most at the hands of violent criminals.

The decision to move Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security institution to a medium-security institution not only left the country shocked, but revictimized the victims' families, friends and communities. As a member of Parliament from the Niagara area, or my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, specifically, which is close to the member's riding and the GTA, this bill hits home. I am sure it does for many around the GTA. The lasting memories of the atrocities Paul Bernardo committed are still felt around our region.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-232. It is to fix a problem that should never have existed in the first place. Canadians expect that the country's most dangerous criminals, who have committed horrific acts and been designated by the courts as dangerous offenders, are to remain in maximum-security institutions, yet under the current system, offenders such as Paul Bernardo have been permitted to move from a maximum-security institution to a less restrictive one. That is not what victims' families expect. It is not what Canadians expect. This bill would ensure that dangerous offenders and mass murderers remain where they belong: in maximum-security prisons. It would require that all of these offenders be permanently classified as maximum security and housed accordingly.

The bill would also reverse the Liberals' so-called “least restrictive environment” standard that was introduced in Bill C-83 in 2018. The Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have shifted the focus away from public safety and victims and toward the interests of offenders. It is time to put public safety and victims at the top of the priority list again. Canadians want a justice system that puts public safety first and respects victims and their families, and they want common-sense rules that ensure that the worst offenders face consequences reflecting the severity of their crimes. That is exactly what Bill C-232 seeks to accomplish.

In addition to reversing the Liberals' weak policies, Bill C-232 would restore a more balanced and common-sense approach to corrections by bringing back the principle of “only the necessary restrictions” that was established by the previous Conservative government through the Safe Streets and Communities Act of 2012. That legislation recognized the simple but important reality that the primary responsibility of our correctional system is to protect the public, maintain safety and security and ensure that offenders are held appropriately accountable for their actions. One would think that is a common-sense statement, but the Liberal government has been moving further and further away from that since it introduced Bill C-83 in 2018, which placed greater emphasis on providing offenders with the least restrictive conditions possible.

Bill C-232 would help restore the balance that Canadians expect, put public safety back at the centre of correctional decision-making and ensure that the rights of victims and the concerns of Canadians are not overshadowed by the interests of violent offenders.

This bill has found support across the board from both the police and victim advocates. Marcia Penner, the victim's rights advocate and friend of Kristen French, one of Paul Bernardo's victims, said:

As someone whose life has been forever impacted by violent crime, I know first-hand that victims and their families carry the consequences of these horrific acts every day. Canadians expect the most dangerous offenders to remain in maximum-security institutions, and Bill C-232 helps restore that common-sense principle while respecting the voices of victims.

Chief of Police Bill Fordy, of the Niagara Regional Police Service, said:

Community safety is strengthened when we continue to have thoughtful conversations about how our justice system responds to serious and repeat offenders. Police officers see every day the impact violent crime can have on victims and our entire community, which is why these discussions matter. Our focus remains on protecting the public while supporting victims and maintaining confidence in the justice system.

Enough is enough. For too long, victims' families have felt ignored by a system that seems more concerned with the rights of offenders than with the pain left behind by their crimes. Every time a dangerous offender is rewarded with a transfer to a less restrictive institution, victims' families are forced to relive the worst moments of their lives. They are reminded that their loved ones will never come home, while the person responsible continues to receive privileges and consideration from the very system that failed them. This is not justice.

Canadians understand that individuals like Paul Bernardo committed crimes so horrific that they forever changed the lives of countless families. Those families deserve to know that the people responsible will remain in maximum-security custody, where they belong.

I stand here today because I promised the families in my community that I would do everything in my power to make it safer. I promised them that their voices would be heard in this chamber.

Bill C‑232 is about restoring faith in our institutions. putting public safety first and ensuring that victims and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this legislation. Together, we can send the clear message that victims matter and public safety matters, and some crimes are so horrific that the offenders responsible should never be rewarded with less restrictive conditions.

Most importantly, we can honour the memories of those whose lives were taken far too soon and stand with the families who continue to carry that loss every single day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I offer the hon. member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake his right of reply.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the chamber today to share some final thoughts on my private member's bill, Bill C-232, before we conclude second reading debate and proceed to an eventual vote.

When I first introduced this bill in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-342, I made a promise to my constituents to see what I could do to help correct a bad policy decision made by the Liberal government in 2019, when it passed C-83. Reintroducing this bill in this Parliament is evidence of my continued commitment to fulfill that promise to my constituents.

If passed, Bill C-232 would require inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first-degree murder to be assigned a security classification of “maximum” and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. This legislation should be seen as non-partisan and a common-sense legislative response to the concerns expressed by many of our constituents.

This is about doing what is right by ensuring that criminal monsters, such as Paul Bernardo, Mark Smich, Dellen Millard and Luka Magnotta, are returned to serve their sentences in a maximum-security penitentiary where they rightly belong.

Earlier in this debate, my Bloc colleague expressed concerns that the bill targets only a single case. It does not, as I demonstrated by the list of notorious criminal names I have just read into this record. My Bloc colleague also expressed concerns about CSC's judgment and that sometimes the justice system makes mistakes. I agree with this. In fact, that is the very reason why this bill is being debated today. It was a mistake by the CSC to transfer Paul Bernardo from maximum to medium security. That needs to be corrected.

Downgrading the security classification of these criminal monsters is not justice. It is an injustice to victims and their loved ones. The victims in these cases had their lives stolen, and their surviving loved ones have no choice but to endure a lifetime of pain and hurt.

I also wish to take a moment to address some of the things we heard and did not hear from the Liberal members taking part in this debate.

Earlier in this debate, my Liberal colleagues spent a lot of time talking about rehabilitation. I would like the Liberals to clarify if they think criminal monsters like Paul Bernardo can be rehabilitated. Let us not forget that former CSC commissioner Anne Kelly, when she appeared before the public safety committee, called Paul Bernardo a “psychopath”. This bill clearly targets the worst of the worst dangerous offenders in Canada. Do the Liberals truly believe Paul Bernardo should be or deserves to be rehabilitated?

Sadly, too often in this splendid place we hear why things cannot be done and why we cannot make this type of change. Instead, let us muster our political will, courage and leadership to bring about this important change.

My constituent, Marcia Penner, a victims' rights advocate and friend of Kristen French, supports this change. She said, “As someone whose life has been forever impacted by violent crime, I know firsthand that victims and their families carry the consequences of these horrific acts every day. Canadians expect the most dangerous offenders to remain in maximum-security institutions, and Bill C-232 helps restore that common-sense principle while respecting the voices of victims.”

Alicia Googoo, the founder of the victims' rights organization Our Heart on Our Sleeve, had this to say about Bill C-232. She said, “As a survivor, I understand the lasting fear and trauma that violent offenders can leave behind. I know the dangers that can exist when society fails to take the risks posed by the most dangerous offenders seriously. Bill C-232 sends a clear message that public safety matters and that the protection of Canadians must remain a priority.”

I sincerely hope my colleagues across party lines will strongly consider, and reconsider, their positions and vote in favour of Bill C-232 so that this important legislative move can be brought forward for study at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has now expired.

Accordingly, 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.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C‑232 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #147

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Due to the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 35 minutes.