High-Risk Offenders Kept in Maximum Security

Summary#

Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), proposes changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Its stated goal is to ensure secure confinement for offenders considered to pose a high risk to public safety; that is a goal, not a guaranteed result. The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or when it would start, so these are proposed changes, not provisions confirmed to be in force.

• The Correctional Service would have to classify an inmate as maximum security if they have been found to be a dangerous offender under the Criminal Code or convicted of more than one first-degree murder.
• Those inmates would have to be confined in a penitentiary, or an area within one, classified as maximum security.
• Maximum-security offenders would not be eligible for unescorted temporary absences. This includes people classified as maximum security under the existing classification rules as well as those covered by the bill’s new mandatory classification.
• The bill would require the Service to take all reasonable steps to provide an environment with only necessary restrictions, while also requiring maximum-security confinement for the specified inmates.

What it means for you#

• Inmates covered by the bill: If the bill became law, the Service would have to classify you as maximum security if you meet either of its criteria, and confine you in a maximum-security penitentiary or area. You would not be eligible for an unescorted temporary absence.
• Other maximum-security offenders: The bill’s temporary-absence provision also applies to offenders classified as maximum security under the Act’s regulations.
• The Correctional Service: It would have to make the specified classifications and ensure the required confinement.
• People outside prison: The bill does not directly change public benefits, taxes, or create a new public-facing service.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill would impose classification and confinement duties on the Service, but gives no staffing or cost estimate. No publicly available information.
• The bill does not set out an appropriation, fee, or fine.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the current Act or its regulations, so the exact change from current law cannot be verified. No publicly available information.
• The bill does not set out procedures, timelines, reviews, or appeals for the new mandatory classification. How those would work under existing law is not shown.
• It does not give a start date. No publicly available information.
• It does not estimate the number of people affected or the costs of classification and confinement. No publicly available information.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to ensure that people in the named categories are held in maximum-security settings.
• A possible argument for the bill is that a mandatory classification and confinement rule could provide a clear security standard for those categories.
• The preamble links secure confinement of people considered high-risk to the stated spirit and intent of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Case against#

• The bill requires maximum classification based on the specified legal status, without stating an exception based on an individual assessment.
• It does not explain how the Service would handle the practical demands or costs of placing everyone covered in maximum-security facilities.
• It is unclear how the mandatory rule would interact with existing classification, transfer, review, or appeal processes.