Debates of June 9th, 2026

Build Canada Homes Act

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague from Ontario about Carolyn Whitzman. I was a member of HUMA, where we had this on our desk to study. I want to read something that she said about Build Canada Homes and how it needs the independence of a Crown corporation. She said that it had been clear from the start that it was merging the existing Canada Lands Company into it. The real question here was affordability, targets and what this kind of economic and social return was expected to generate, and how we needed these plans for a national housing strategy. She was a huge proponent of this.

Therefore, I would like to remind my colleague that we have people who are doing the work and I would love to see the responsiveness of our minister in this.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like it is always the same old story.

The federal government is proposing strategies, like the Build Canada Homes program. It is also proposing to retool the forestry sector, but that will not happen in six months. It will take 10 years to see results.

The federal government is not agile enough to act in a timely manner.

That is why, in my speech earlier, I gave the example of the affordable housing fund, which has gone from CMHC to Build Canada Homes, meaning that, today, projects that would have received this funding 10 or so months ago are now stuck waiting.

That is the problem with these initiatives.

Perhaps my colleague is seeing the same thing in her own riding.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been experiencing similarities with our ridings. Although I am in a coastal community, we still have small-town pride.

I would like to say to my colleague that we have been with our new government for only a year. We have been laying infrastructure. We are trying to pass this bill that would help unlock everything and get those shovels in the ground. In my own riding, I have had multiple announcements and multiple shovels in the ground.

I have talked to the people in my forestry sector. My colleague wants to talk about lack of support in the forestry sector. I have talked with Derek Nighbor of the Forest Products Association of Canada regarding how I can work with my local mills and my local prefab people and build those partnerships together to get more shovels in the ground for private, non-market and co-operative housing.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned municipalities in her speech. I am a former municipal councillor. Municipalities at any given time have a lot of balls in the air that they have to balance. One of the big ones is housing. I am wondering if my colleague could comment further on the role she sees municipalities playing and how this legislation would impact municipalities positively.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as a former municipal councillor, the example that I used in my speech today in regard to our municipality and district in Lunenburg and my town of Bridgewater is how people were trying to put together a larger supportive housing complex just outside of the town of Bridgewater, but they did not have the waste-water system. Therefore, they are working with the town. They are working with the municipality and collating a larger project that is going to help over 3,000 people in my riding, so these partnerships are key.

I would ask members who are negating this legislation whether they have sat down with all the different key players and stakeholders. What are they doing, as their representative, to help make these plans to get these shovels in the ground?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate on Bill C‑20, Build Canada Homes, which was a promise the Liberals made in the 2025 campaign. I cannot remember the name of the Liberal guy I ran against, but he was very excited about this, saying that he was going to get these homes built and that this was going to be a great policy.

I remember thinking, from a Saskatchewan point of view, that we are home to many Crown corporations. I know how Crown corporations work. I have been in government in Saskatchewan. I cannot recall a lot of situations when Crown corporations were involved and became more streamlined or development happened faster and things got done more quickly. That was not really the case when Crown corporations get involved with development on a local scale. However, I do have a couple of points I want to make during this speech.

I will read testimony from actual experts in homebuilding. Mike Moffatt, from the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “BCH lacks a clear goal, lacks targets and lacks key performance indicators and accountability measures. The public has not been told how many homes the program will complete, what types of homes, what the rents and prices will be, or over what time frame.”

At HUMA, David Wilkes, Building Industry and Land Development Association, said, “To put that [housing] crisis into perspective, in 2025 just over 5,000 new homes were sold in the GTA, the lowest level since we began tracking in 1981. That is an 80% decline from the 10‑year average and follows similarly weak years in 2024 and 2023.” He also said, “It is important to note that 95% of the housing in Canada, both ownership and rental, is delivered through the private market.”

At HUMA, Scott Andison, Ontario Home Builders' Association, said, “When new home construction slows, the impact extends beyond the housing industry alone. Communities lose jobs, government loses revenue and fewer homes are being built for families to create memories.” He also said, “As the industry association representing home builders across Ontario, we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government.”

I will be honoured to share my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre.

That got me thinking back to when I was in government with the Saskatchewan Party in Saskatchewan. In 2011, we brought forward the Saskatchewan advantage housing plan. Most Liberals will not believe this, but we actually put numbers and targets in this housing plan so that people knew what we wanted to accomplish. We had five programs during that housing initiative called head start on a home, affordable home ownership, rental construction incentive, $35 million for rental housing, and habitat for humanity partnership. The numbers actually coalesced with the programs. We wanted 1,100 units for head start on a home, 600 units for affordable home ownership, 2,900 units for rental construction, 160 for rental housing and 30 for habitat for humanity, so a total of 4,690 homes. Can colleagues imagine a government bringing forward a program with the actual targets of what it wanted to build so that citizens knew what they were voting for?

That is my problem with the Build Canada Homes program. My problem is that the government threw $13 billion into a pot to create a whole new bureaucracy. I would love it if one of my Liberal colleagues would tell me how much of that $13 million is going to go into bonuses for executives. How much is going to go into actually paying bureaucrats to sit in Ottawa and not put shovels in the ground?

We did just get a lot of numbers related to bonuses for Crown executives this past year. What was the total payment for Crown executives? I think millions and millions of dollars went to executives of Crown companies who did not provide any results.

My fear with Bill C‑20 is that there are going to be a lot of bonuses for executives and hardly any homes for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo posed a question to one of the member's colleagues from Alberta. I would like to echo the same sentiment from that question. That is, we have agreements today for housing projects in collaboration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We continue to work collaboratively with different jurisdictions.

Can the member be very clear? If he does not support the legislation and he does not support the federal government being involved directly in housing, will he say that very clearly today? Will the member be bold enough to say that he will not support those projects that are being supported by the provinces, municipalities and federal government?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be very bold. I think the provincial governments do need some federal funding. I do not think the federal government needs to have another bureaucracy in order to listen to municipalities and provinces and get them the funding they need to build homes. It does not have to be in the business of homebuilding. It can actually help the provinces when it comes to funding. The government does not have to pick winners and losers, which I know Liberals like to do. After Build Canada Homes comes to fruition, I am very sure that Brookfield will be building a lot of homes in Canada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned executive bonuses, and I just want to point out that the company also gave some great bonuses to its executives, while it has built zero kilometres of rail line. I just thought I would put that on the record as well.

I want to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about the interest rate and the value of our money, how that affects homebuilding, and what the government is doing to affect those things.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the value of the Canadian dollar has gone down. Actually, it has just gone down again over the last couple of days, so our dollar is not going as far as it did in years prior.

When it comes to interest rates, what has happened to the Canadian dollar and our purchasing power is that the more the government spends, the greater the deficits are. The PBO just said that the deficit is actually going to be $50 billion higher than first projected only a couple of months ago. When the government continues to have a reckless spending problem, it leaves Canadians with less money in their pockets, and inflation goes up.

Government members talk about procuring wood to build homes in Canada, but having 36 mill closures over the last couple of years in B.C. and Quebec is also going to make homebuilding less affordable. They cannot get a softwood tariff deal done with the United States, which they promised to do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some good points. The number one project in my riding for Build Canada Homes is a project to serve some individuals with intellectual disabilities. We know that many people with intellectual disabilities are served by L'Arche Canada, L'Arche Comox Valley in my riding. I am sure it is L'Arche in Regina—Lewvan.

Right now, Build Canada Homes is holding the project up. It is saying that it does not meet the criteria for supportive and transitional needs. How can people with intellectual disabilities not meet the criteria for transitional needs? This is a project that is supported by L'Arche Canada. Build Canada Homes is saying that it cannot do anything right now. The minister's office says it cannot talk to Build Canada Homes and cannot get involved. These people have nowhere to go right now. They are the most vulnerable people in our society. They count on us.

Maybe my colleague can speak about how this is such a disaster right now.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague's comments go to the heart of my argument. The federal government should not be picking winners and losers. The provincial government and municipalities can put programs forward to make sure that the people who most need homes can get them. The government can supply some of the funding, but the people on the ground doing the building should be able to get that money and help build those homes. I was proud to be part of the Saskatchewan government that brought forward the Saskatchewan assured income for disability program. We have to look after the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the current Parliament started, I had the opportunity to meet in the middle of the floor with the new housing minister to talk about what his new portfolio would entail. At that point in time, I told him very clearly that he should just throw out what he had and start over anew, because all the advice he had been given, and what I have seen over the last six years since I have been in the House, has been a bunch of garbage and a bunch of non-results from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The entire bureaucracy that he is in charge of at this point in time has just layered on more and more spending but has accomplished nothing.

That is a preamble to my speech about where we need to go in this country.

Since 2019, the federal government has introduced or expanded roughly a dozen major housing programs and initiatives, layer upon layer on top of its existing strategies. Today we have a system with overlapping funds, loan programs and agencies, and now there is a brand new Crown corporation added to the mix. All of this sits within a $100‑billion‑plus national housing strategy that was designed not as a single focused solution but as a collection of complementary programs.

The problem is not a lack of federal activity. It is that this growing web of programs is not translating into the number of homes Canadians actually need, but instead of focusing on why that is happening, the proposed bill would take us in the wrong direction. Bill C‑20 is not really about building homes. It is about building another federal bureaucracy.

We have to be honest about what is driving housing costs in this country. The number one factor is not a lack of ideas or a lack of programs. It is the cost of building, and that cost is increasingly driven by government: taxes, fees, regulations and constant changes to the rules of the game. We heard this across the country when I was chairing the economic growth council. Every time the government changes a building code, adds a requirement or delays a permit, it adds costs, and those costs do not disappear. They get passed on directly to the homebuyer or the renter.

We have seen what happens when governments overreact with broad, top-down policies. In Ontario, there are now entire segments of the housing market dominated by 500‑square‑foot condo units. They were being built not because families were demanding them but because policy decisions pushed the market in that direction. That is what happens when government tries to centrally shape outcomes instead of enabling the market to respond to real demand, and we are seeing a similar lesson play out in my hometown of Calgary.

Over the last four years, the municipal government in Calgary took a blanket rezoning approach, promoted as a solution to affordability. What actually happened? A recent assessment showed that the primary beneficiaries were not homebuyers. They were land speculators and developers who captured the increased value. Communities suffered, while affordability did not materially improve, and Calgarians took notice. That is why there was a political reset at the municipal level. Politicians were thrown out for their false start and what they said they were trying to do versus what they were actually accomplishing. People understand that simply changing zoning everywhere without addressing costs and implementation does not automatically result in affordable homes.

This brings us to Bill C‑20. Instead of addressing the structural cost drivers in the system, the government would be expanding its footprint. Build Canada Homes would have sweeping powers in financing, land acquisition and development authority, and it would come with a significant price tag: another $13 billion over five years.

However, the question Canadians should be asking is simple: What would we be getting for that money? The evidence suggests that it would not be very much. Even government-backed analysis shows that the program would deliver only a fraction of the homes that are promised: 5,200 projected homes per year. At the same time, we would be expanding the size of government, with more administrators, more overhead and more layers. That cost does not build homes. It builds bureaucracies.

We must also consider the cost per unit. When the government steps in as a developer, costs tend to rise, not fall. Projects take longer, risk increases, accountability becomes less clear, and ultimately, taxpayers are left carrying that burden. We would, effectively, be asking Canadians, who are already dealing with high housing costs, to also fund an expanded federal structure that has no clear targets for delivery.

Experts have already warned about this. They told the committee that Build Canada Homes lacks clear goals, lacks targets and lacks accountability. We would not only be expanding government; we would be doing so without a clear measure of success.

It is clear that the cost of housing is too high in Canada, but it is also important to be clear about the causes. Those are the taxes, fees and regulations that drive up construction costs. Every new regulation, every delay, every change to the National Building Code creates additional costs, and those costs are paid for by Canadians.

Bill C‑20 does not resolve those issues. On the contrary, it expands the size of government and creates more bureaucracy. As the experts said in committee, there is neither a clear target nor an accountability mechanism. What we need is not more bureaucracy. We need an environment where builders can build faster and at a lower cost.

How do we stop the cost escalation? We bring discipline and stability to building codes, reduce delays and uncertainty in approvals, limit the growth of government structures that add costs without adding supply, and ensure that public money actually delivers measurable results. Canadians are already under significant financial pressure. There are rising debt levels, and more households are stretched to their limit. Canadians cannot afford policies that increase costs, whether directly through housing prices or indirectly through higher government spending.

At the end of the day, this is all about outcomes. Would we be building more homes? Would we be lowering costs? Would we be improving affordability? On all three counts, the bill would fall short. Bill C-20 would expand government, increase spending and avoid the real work of addressing the cost drivers that are holding back supply. I will continue to support solutions that focus on what actually matters: lowering the cost of building homes Canadians need and making home ownership achievable again for Canadians, including the people of Calgary and across Alberta.

There are many ways we can get involved in this from the federal perspective, but as I told the minister when he first took the housing portfolio, the main thing he can do is second-guess the people who have been giving the government advice for the last 11 years, because all they have done is added cost to the system, cost to the building of homes and cost for Canadians, including more debt. A ridiculous amount of money is continuing to be spent in the sector for housing. People need housing. It is the number one expense for all Canadians now across the board. We cannot continue to add more cost to the basic needs of shelter in our society, not to mention what is happening with food inflation in this country.

Housing inflation is definitely something we have to get under control. The bill would do nothing of the sort. It would add costs, and those costs would be borne by Canadians. Let us think about the cost of debt per household in society. The cost of paying for debt is about $3,400 per household. The average rent in Calgary for a two-bedroom house is $1,700 per month, so every Canadian family in Calgary is actually paying two months' worth of rent to cover the interest being paid on the federal debt right now. This is an atrocious amount of money that adds to the cost of everything we have to pay in society at this point in time.

It continues. This is just the federal level. Of course, there is provincial debt, municipal debt and corporate debt. There is also personal debt. The bill would do nothing to reduce the debt level that Canadians are facing. It would make things less affordable. It would make things worse for Canadians. We oppose it strongly.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-215, an act respecting national immigration month.

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

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.