Mandatory Max-Security for High-Risk Offenders

Summary#

This bill changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It requires that certain high‑risk inmates are always classified as maximum security and kept in maximum‑security prisons or areas. It also confirms these inmates cannot get unescorted temporary absences. The bill does not change parole eligibility dates.

• Sets a mandatory maximum‑security classification for inmates found to be “dangerous offenders” under the Criminal Code (Bill s.30(1.1)).
• Sets the same mandatory classification for inmates convicted of more than one first‑degree murder (Bill s.30(1.1)).
• Requires confinement in a maximum‑security penitentiary or maximum‑security area (Bill s.28(2)).
• Limits transfers that would conflict with this mandatory classification (Bill s.29, “Subject to subsection 30(1.1)”).
• Confirms maximum‑security inmates under these rules cannot have unescorted temporary absences (Bill s.115(3)).
• Cites the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in the preamble as a guiding principle (Preamble).

What it means for you#

• Households and victims

  • High‑risk inmates covered by this bill will remain in maximum‑security settings. This may address safety concerns noted in the preamble tied to victims’ rights (Preamble; Bill s.28(2), s.30(1.1)).
  • No change to parole eligibility dates or victim participation rights; existing processes remain (No explicit amendments outside ss.28–30, 115).

• Inmates

  • If a court has designated you a dangerous offender (Criminal Code, Part XXIV), you must be classified as maximum security and housed accordingly (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)).
  • If you have been convicted of more than one first‑degree murder, the same mandatory maximum classification applies (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)).
  • You will not be eligible for unescorted temporary absences while classified as maximum security under these provisions (Bill s.115(3)).
  • Transfers to lower‑security facilities are not permitted where they would conflict with the mandatory maximum classification (Bill s.29, s.30(1.1)).
  • Other inmates are still classified case‑by‑case under existing regulations (Bill s.30(1)).

• Families and visitors

  • Visits to maximum‑security units may involve stricter controls and fewer privileges than medium‑security settings. Specific impacts will depend on Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) policy. Data unavailable.

• Corrections staff and facilities

  • CSC must assign and maintain maximum‑security classification for the covered groups and confine them in maximum‑security facilities or areas (Bill s.28(2), s.30(1.1)).
  • Transfer decisions are constrained by the mandatory rule for these inmates (Bill s.29).
  • Operational planning may need to adjust maximum‑security capacity and staffing. Data unavailable.

• Timing

  • The bill contains no special coming‑into‑force clause. Changes would take effect on Royal Assent.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or appropriation in the bill text. The bill creates a standing requirement but does not fund it (Bill, passim).
• Potential cost drivers (quantitative impact unknown):
  • Housing inmates in maximum security generally costs more per person than in lower security. Data unavailable.
  • Possible need to increase maximum‑security bed capacity or staffing if more inmates are kept at that level. Data unavailable.
  • No identified offsets or new revenues in the bill. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Increases public safety by ensuring those found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of multiple first‑degree murders remain in maximum‑security conditions (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)).
• Creates clear, uniform rules that limit discretion to downgrade security levels for a small, highest‑risk group, improving consistency across facilities (Bill s.30(1.1), s.29).
• Aligns with the spirit of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by prioritizing secure confinement for offenders who pose a high risk (Preamble).
• Closes gaps by explicitly tying mandatory maximum classification to ineligibility for unescorted temporary absences, avoiding ambiguity (Bill s.115(3)).
• Keeps the general “only necessary restrictions” standard for all others, while carving out a rule for the highest‑risk inmates (Bill s.28(1)–(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Removes individualized assessments for the affected inmates and may conflict with the Act’s principle of using only necessary restrictions, since it does not allow downgrading even after progress (Bill s.28(1) vs. s.30(1.1)).
• Could raise costs if more inmates must be kept in maximum security, which typically has higher per‑inmate operating costs; no official estimate is provided (Data unavailable).
• May reduce access to programs and opportunities more available in lower‑security settings, which could affect rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes (Bill s.30(1.1); operational impacts unquantified).
• Risks crowding in maximum‑security units and operational strain if capacity is tight; the bill does not address resource needs (Data unavailable).
• Could face legal challenges arguing that a mandatory rule is unreasonable for lifelong application without case‑by‑case review, given the Act’s “necessary restrictions” framing (Bill s.28(1), s.30(1.1)).