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.