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.