Neutral
An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders)
The bill prioritizes safety by mandating maximum-security placement for the highest-risk offenders, but it does not advance prosperity or competitiveness and likely raises corrections costs. With unclear safety gains over existing risk-based tools and potential legal risks, the overall alignment with prosperity-focused tenets is negative.
How many inmates will be reclassified to maximum security under C-232, what are the projected annual operating and capital costs, and where are those funds accounted for in the fiscal framework?
Did the minister obtain a Charter analysis confirming that a blanket, indefinite maximum-security classification for dangerous offenders and multiple first-degree murderers complies with sections 7 and 12, and will that statement be tabled today?
What empirical evidence shows that mandatory maximum classification improves public and institutional safety over risk-based assessments, and how will rehabilitation and step-down pathways be maintained without undermining safety?
Public safety is foundational, but the bill has no direct prosperity lever and likely increases corrections costs, making overall economic impact unclear.
This is a criminal justice operations change, not an economic freedom measure; making classification mandatory simplifies decisions but does not impact economic dynamism.
No clear link to productivity or competitiveness.
No bearing on trade or export growth.
No direct impact on investment or innovation.
Mandating maximum security for broad categories increases per-inmate costs, pressures capacity, and reduces CSC flexibility to place offenders efficiently.
No tax policy changes.
This is a targeted corrections policy with no large-scale prosperity effects.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]