TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Private Members' Business

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

2026-06-09 Sitting 132 Showing 1–1 of 1

A bill to make sure dangerous offenders and those convicted of multiple first-degree murders are kept in maximum security prisons. During debate, Conservative MPs made speeches about the importance of restoring justice and protecting public safety, while the Liberal speaker made a short, generic statement about safety and security being a priority. Several Conservatives relayed personal anecdotes and tangents about their ridings.

Official Hansard ↗

Tom Osborne

Liberal 5:40 p.m.

“I want to look like I care about safety, but I don't like this bill. I think the government should focus on rehabilitating criminals instead of punishing them. I'm worried this bill would make it harder for criminals to access programs to reform their behavior. I think this bill would make our communities less safe because it puts politics ahead of evidence-based policies.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates