Summary#

This bill changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require automatic maximum-security classification for two groups: offenders designated as “dangerous offenders” under the Criminal Code and offenders convicted of more than one first‑degree murder. It also requires those inmates to be confined in a maximum‑security penitentiary or area and confirms they are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences. Transfer powers are limited so this rule cannot be bypassed. The bill would take effect 3 months after Royal Assent.

• Automatic maximum-security classification for dangerous offenders and for persons with more than one first‑degree murder conviction (Bill s.30(1.1)).
• Mandatory placement in a maximum‑security penitentiary or a maximum‑security area of a penitentiary (Bill s.28(2)).
• Not eligible for unescorted temporary absences while classified maximum security (Bill s.115(3)).
• Transfer authority is “subject to” the new rule, limiting moves that would undercut maximum‑security confinement (Bill s.29).
• In force 3 months after Royal Assent (Coming into force).

What it means for you#

• Households and the public

  • Certain high‑risk offenders would be held only in maximum security and would not receive unescorted temporary absences (Bill s.28(2), s.115(3)). Effective 3 months after Royal Assent.

• Victims and families

  • For applicable cases, prison placement would be fixed at maximum security by law rather than by case‑by‑case assessment (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)). Effective 3 months after Royal Assent.
  • Unescorted temporary absences would not occur for these offenders (Bill s.115(3)).

• Affected inmates (dangerous offenders; more than one first‑degree murder)

  • Security level: Automatically classified as maximum security, with no discretion provided in the bill to lower the classification later (Bill s.30(1.1)).
  • Placement: Must be confined in a maximum‑security penitentiary or area (Bill s.28(2)).
  • Movement: Not eligible for unescorted temporary absences (Bill s.115(3)).
  • Transfers: The Commissioner’s transfer power cannot be used in a way that conflicts with the mandatory maximum‑security rule (Bill s.29).
  • Start date: Rules apply starting 3 months after Royal Assent.

• Other federal inmates (not in the two categories)

  • No change to how they are classified, placed, or considered for unescorted temporary absences under this bill (Bill s.30(1)).

• Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC)

  • CSC must assign maximum‑security classification to the specified groups and confine them in maximum‑security settings (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)).
  • CSC and PBC would not process unescorted temporary absence applications for these inmates because they would be ineligible (Bill s.115(3)).
  • CSC transfer decisions must comply with the new mandatory classification (Bill s.29).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Key points:

  • No fiscal note or appropriation is included in the bill. Data unavailable.
  • The bill creates a mandatory placement rule but does not authorize new spending or revenues. Data unavailable.
  • Potential impacts on CSC operating costs or capacity are not quantified in publicly released documents related to this bill. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Enhances public safety by ensuring that offenders deemed highest risk are held only in maximum security, consistent with the bill’s preamble referencing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (Preamble; Bill s.28(2), s.30(1.1)).
• Establishes a clear, uniform national rule for two narrow offender groups, reducing inconsistent case‑by‑case outcomes (Bill s.30(1.1)).
• Closes any gap by confirming ineligibility for unescorted temporary absences for these maximum‑security inmates (Bill s.115(3)).
• Limits transfers that could place these offenders in lower‑security settings, reducing management discretion that could vary across institutions (Bill s.29, s.28(2)).
• Provides a short implementation window so CSC can adjust operations before the rules take effect (Coming into force).

Opponents' View#

• Removes individualized assessment for security placement and may conflict with the Act’s direction to provide “only the necessary restrictions,” by mandating maximum security regardless of personal risk change over time (Bill s.28(1), s.30(1.1)).
• Creates a categorical rule with no path in the bill to reclassification, even if an inmate’s risk decreases, limiting incentives tied to progression through security levels (Bill s.30(1.1)).
• Operational risk: Maximum‑security capacity and staffing could face pressure; the bill offers no implementation resources or flexibility. No official cost estimate is provided (Bill s.28(2); Expenses: Data unavailable).
• Rehabilitation trade‑off: By making these inmates ineligible for unescorted temporary absences, the bill removes one tool the Act otherwise uses for gradual, structured community exposure (Bill s.115(3)).