Debates of March 10th, 2026

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should bring the debate back to the substance of the bill.

The bill says that a person cannot promote hatred under the guise of religion. We have been debating this for far too long already. In committee, there has been systematic obstruction from the Conservatives that makes no sense.

From what I understand, my friends think that a person should be able to promote hatred if it is for religious reasons. That makes no sense.

My colleague said earlier that she would not trust politicians with her religious freedom and freedom of expression. Personally, I would have even less trust in priests and religious experts to tell us how we should behave in society and what does or does not promote hatred.

I think she needs to review or reread the bill.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The religions we have in Canada are religions of love, not religions of hate. We do not see, for example, the Christian church trying to hate on people. We do not see the Jewish church trying to hate on people. That is not at all what it means to have faith in this country. The freedom is to have that faith, even if other people find what one says offensive. Being offended is not a charter right, but freedom of religion and freedom of expression are.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal committee members called no evidence whatsoever when witnesses were called to committee to study Bill C-9.

What evidentiary basis does my colleague think the government is relying on to support its justification for the removal of a 50-year-old defence?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has worked so hard on this file, for that question.

I do not know how the government can deny that 30 million people of faith in this country have concerns about this when the Catholic diocese, the Anglican Church, the Evangelical Fellowship and the Muslim council wrote to the Prime Minister. Everyone wrote to the Prime Minister and expressed concern about that, and the government has turned a deaf ear to the situation, unfortunately. That is why we are here today. That is why we will continue to fight this removal of the religious exemption from the hate speech act.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

It is a pleasure to be speaking in this chamber today on this very important piece of legislation. It is one of a trio of bills that we, on this side of the House, committed to and campaigned on when this was put in our platform, along with the other pieces of legislation around intimate partner violence and other crimes against women and children, and our bail and sentencing reforms. It added up, in my experience, to be the most ambitious set of criminal justice proposals that we have proposed on this side of the House in not just one generation but several generations.

The bill is coming from a place of real concern and need with respect to the growth in hate crimes in Canada. Statistics from Statistics Canada show that from 2022 to 2023, there was a 32% increase in the number of hate crimes. There were almost 5,000. There were 1,284 crimes targeting religion in 2023, which was a 67% increase. Nine hundred of them focused on Jewish people and 211 of them focused on Muslims. Hate crimes related to sexual orientation over that year, between 2022 and 2023, according to Statistics Canada, were up 69% to 860 such crimes.

We are in a situation supercharged by social media, supercharged by, I believe, some of the postpandemic effects on people and supercharged by, yes, things that are happening in the world that are motivating people to express themselves negatively. However, this is not just about negative expression. This is about hate crime. This is about crimes that are at the level of the Criminal Code.

There are a couple of provisions in this legislation that I think are really important in illustrating the myths versus what is actually in the legislation. For instance, I have been hearing from people in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park that this legislation would, in their view, potentially impede their right to peaceful protest. The right to peaceful protest is a clear charter right and something that everyone on all sides of the House agrees with, and it would not be subject to this legislation. What would be subject to it are intimidation and physical obstruction in the very targeted places and manners laid out in the legislation, where an identifiable group is gathered and it is a specific act of intimidation and physical obstruction, not peaceful protest. Peaceful protest would continue to be protected by this legislation.

On the other hand, I have heard on the other side of the House that a variety of forms of expression would be prohibited by this legislation. There is a very specific statement about hate speech in a recent Supreme Court decision, which we are merely bringing into legislation, around vilification and detestation. This is not about all those other forms of expression. This is very specifically about vilification and detestation.

We have added the incorporation of hate symbols from organizations that are on the list of terrorist organizations, which is a list of organizations that I believe is managed with great care. When an organization is added to that list, it is because, in the expert determination of those who follow it, that organization is a terrorist organization. We have good debates in the House about that. It is those symbols, displayed in those particular contexts, that then would rise to the level of this bill, whereby we would seek to criminalize the display of those symbols in those contexts.

The charter rights would continue to be protected in all respects, but the display of these hate symbols, unfortunately, is something we have seen more of and, I think, requires this level of extraordinary intervention. I have just cited some of the statistics about the rise in hate crimes. We know that synagogues in the greater Toronto area in particular are being targeted.

In recent weeks, I have had the chance to visit or be in conversation with leaders from the Jami mosque in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, Toronto's oldest mosque, along with the Albanian mosque on Annette Street and the Hamza mosque in Parkdale. I have also visited with and been in touch with the leadership of the Junction Shul on Maria Street, which I know has a special connection to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I have been in conversation with faith leaders.

I have not heard from them the kind of rhetoric that I hear from the other side. I do not hear any fear from them about their ability or opportunities to participate in the kinds of religious service and in the kinds of free speech that they continue to enjoy. It is important to be aware of the myths that are being propagated versus the very targeted interventions that we are doing here in response to a very evident rise in hate crime.

I wish we did not need this legislation, but it is an extraordinary set of events that are coming together, witnessed as recently as this weekend in the greater Toronto area, where we need to assert, not just as a legislature and not just as lawmakers, but as a House collectively, that we stand against this kind of vilification and detestation and that, yes, reasonable, targeted amendments to the Criminal Code are necessary to do so.

We have a programming motion that we are debating right now. The bill has seen over 30 hours of debate and over 30 witnesses at committee. It is time to pass the bill, to do our job as legislators, to be in receipt of the work of the committee and to bring the bill forward. It is a targeted piece of legislation that responds to the real needs and real concerns of our community, especially those who are vulnerable to vilification, hatred and detestation. We know who some of those groups are. They are asking us to act. My constituents are saying that we need more protection from hate, and we need to protect our right to free expression. The bill would do that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, it is quite extraordinary to hear the member say, with respect to the Muslim community, “I have talked to some people at the mosques in my riding, and everybody seems fine with it,” which was effectively what he said. We received a letter from over 350 different Muslim organizations in this country, expressing grave concern in line with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, with Protestant organizations and with the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, all raising concern about the removal of the religious defence.

I am not sure what the disconnect here is, but we see a lot of misrepresentation of stakeholder perspectives from the government's perspective. Why are the Liberals removing the religious defence? Why do they choose to do that?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in my capacity here as an MP representing my constituents. The leaders I have been dealing with in my riding have not raised this as a concern that they feel needs an urgent response. The urgent response that they are raising is the fear and the potential fear that they know is being faced by them and their members and congregants. This piece of legislation, in a very targeted way, would do the job to respond.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I myself took a telephone call at my office here on the Hill from a person who was calling to say that I should vote against Bill C‑9. At the end of the conversation, the person said that they hoped that I would find it in my heart to change my mind. I replied that I hoped that they would use their intellect to read the bill, because they had been infected with Conservative misinformation. They had never read the bill in any form.

According to the misinformation that is being spread by the Conservatives, no witnesses came to talk about the religious exemption. I watched meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, and the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked each witness questions about the religious exemption. Some were for it and some were against it. There were opinions on both sides. That is what Parliament is for. That is how it should work.

Here is the question I want to ask my colleague. Why does he think the Conservatives are continuing to spread disinformation? Does he think they might be using this as a way to obtain election financing?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I have received emails and correspondence. I have had, and continue to have, conversations with people who oppose this bill.

As my colleague said, these people have not had the opportunity to read the bill for themselves, and they have received misinformation and disinformation. They send me emails about things that are not in the bill.

When I calmly explain what the bill does and does not do, they are reassured.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at Bill C-9, it is important to recognize that there is nothing within the bill that actually threatens freedom of religion. In fact, the Charter of Rights guarantees it. It was a Liberal government, back in the 1970s, that brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is happening today in our mosques, gurdwaras, churches and temples is going to continue to happen. There is no change.

My question for the member is this: What does the member believe, from his personal perspective, about individuals or groups that would promote misinformation on this particular important piece of legislation?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, and I realize this is also a fuller response to my colleague, the member for Mirabel.

I believe the source of this is an attempt to find opportunity. We have some good collaboration on some aspects of some pieces of legislation with the other side. We have had good conversation in the past about Bill C-5. We have had conversations about Bill C-19, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act.

However, the other side needs to find that thing to provide a wedge, to say, “We are with you, and they are against you. They are not with you.” I believe and I am concerned that the party on the other side is saying, “The Liberal Party of Canada is against you as a religious person. It is against religious organizations and religious freedom.” I just stand firmly opposed on that. We are the party of the charter, and the charter is our guiding light.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate today on Bill C-9, I have to call out the profound dishonesty of so much of the argumentation that we have heard from the government. We see many of their speeches relying on personal attacks, ignoring the substance of the legislation, not engaging with what is actually in the bill, and trying to make it all about claims about their motivations and false imputations of motives on the other side.

Let us talk about the actual substance of the provisions. Bill C-9 includes a variety of provisions, but most controversially, it includes the removal of the religious defence, which means that a person could be prosecuted for a good-faith reading of a religious text or making a religious argument. I think what has alarmed so many people is not just those provisions, but those provisions in combination with the words of the Minister of Heritage at committee. When he served as chair of the justice committee, he spoke explicitly about how reading certain passages of the Bible would necessarily be seen as hateful and could not be interpreted as being in good faith. Those were the words of the then chair of the justice committee, who was promptly promoted by the Prime Minister to, imagine that, being our Minister of Heritage.

There is, as a result of these provisions and the comments of that minister, profound concern that what the Minister of Heritage talked about would actually come to pass, namely that people would be prosecuted for hate speech simply for reading scripture. As a result of that, there has been profound concern expressed by members of all faith communities in this country. Leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community, over 350 Muslim organizations that put out a letter today, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Christian organizations across the denominational spectrum have all expressed profound concerns.

The Liberals are trying to claim that all of these different faith groups have been captured by the Conservative Party information machine. What nonsense. These religious organizations can speak for themselves. They can lead based on the concerns they have and the concerns of their own community. If the Conservative Party could actually control the opinions of all religious organizations at once in this country, I think it is fair to say that we would have won a few more elections. Let us dispense with this nonsense and let us show more respect for faith communities in this country to actually listen to what they are saying.

Liberals tell us, “Don't worry, because removing the religious defence doesn't really have any effect. Don't worry; it's not going to have the effect you say it has.” If that is true, then why are they doing it? We hear Liberals make false claims about what removing the religious defence would not do, but we never hear them say what it would actually do. Let us cut through this nonsense and say that if they supported an amendment to remove the religious defence, they must have had some reason for doing that. It was not just a matter of insubstantial legislative housekeeping. They made a choice to remove this long-standing religious defence. They must have had a reason for doing it. Many faith communities are concerned, and we are concerned, that the reason they decided to do it is the same reason that was said out loud by the Minister of Heritage at committee, namely, their view that the reading of certain passages of scripture would or could or should be deemed hate speech. We are opposed to that.

The member who just spoke said that some people are trying to create the impression that Liberals do not respect conscience or religious freedom. My goodness, how could anyone have come to that conclusion? Well, in the last 10 years, they shut down the Office of Religious Freedom. They imposed a values test in association with the Canada summer jobs program. Also, the last report from the Liberal-dominated finance committee on budget consultations called for the removal of charitable status from houses of worship. The Liberal-dominated finance committee called for the stripping of charitable status from religious organizations. Now, members across the way are shocked that many religious people in this country are a little suspicious of the agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada.

When all of these things have happened over the last 10 years, and when the Minister of Heritage gets up and says that people should be prosecuted for reading religious scripture, members across the way are surprised: How come people are suspicious? This is not a conspiracy. Religious people are concerned because they have read the text of the bill, unlike many members opposite, and they are worried about it.

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.