Campbell: Don't turn back the clock on Canada's treatment of those serving life sentences

A handful of people in this country have committed truly heinous crimes. But revising the law to require imprisonment with no hope of reformation for thousands of others — who are in fact able to atone and move forward — reflects a social standard from 200 years ago.

Published May 15, 2024 • Last updated 4 hours ago • 3 minute read

La Macaza Institution is located in La Macaza, Que. It’s a stand-alone medium security facility that opened in 1977. Photo by Correctional Service of Canada

On May 29, 2023, a political firestorm erupted when a notorious sex offender convicted of multiple murders was transferred from maximum security to medium. Outrage filled the airwaves and the Correctional Service of Canada and the then-minister of Public Safety were pilloried for allegedly disregarding public safety.

Flash forward a year. The sky has not fallen. The sun rises and sets. The wind blows, the grass grows. The offender, Paul Bernardo, continues his life sentence: no incidents reported, no escapes from La Macaza penitentiary.

Advertisement 2

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Exclusive articles from Elizabeth Payne, David Pugliese, Andrew Duffy, Bruce Deachman and others. Plus, food reviews and event listings in the weekly newsletter, Ottawa, Out of Office.Unlimited online access to Ottawa Citizen and 15 news sites with one account.Ottawa Citizen ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.

SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Sign In or Create an Account

Article content

Last year’s tumult was recently reignited by an MP’s dramatic video, long on stirring music and soaring rhetoric, but short on facts.

The point of the video, made after his visit to La Macaza, appears twofold. First, to shock Parliament and the public with his description of the penitentiary conditions as “luxurious.” Unlike many people, I have actually visited many Canadian penitentiaries at all security levels, as well as prisons around the world. At no time have I been moved to use the word “luxurious.” At the high end, I think I could go with “humane,” which is the legal standard to which we are bound domestically and internationally.

But even this minimum standard is too much for many, who would prefer to see such offenders living in circumstances approximating the pain their victims experienced. And this is the second point of the video: to demand that lifers like them be imprisoned in bare-bones maximum security until they leave in a pine box.

The problem is: who are the “others like them”? When politicians and the public express their outrage about lifers, they can usually name five or six people. Maybe 10 if they follow the news closely.

Advertisement 3

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

But if you change the policies or laws for lifers because of those 10, that still leaves 5,782 other lifers, as of 2021-22. Most are nowhere near the level of venality of those 10. For instance, those who have exhibited great remorse, reconciled with victims, and gone on to live law-abiding lives, paying back the community. People such as G, who met with his victim’s family, was paroled, and launched a community garden that donates its produce to local food banks. Or R, who works tirelessly to assist other paroled lifers to become contributing members of society.

Other facts? Most lifers (62 per cent) are serving their sentence in custody, mostly in medium security. Of those on parole, the majority (79 per cent) have served sentences for second-degree murder, not first. And perhaps surprisingly to some, lifers released on parole do well.

If you want a law or policy that will get tough on 10 people but not the other 5,700+ lifers, how would you craft it? Number of murders? But I can think of one lifer who killed four victims who has been in medium security for several years now, has had escorted passes, and prompted no public outcry. Heinousness of the offence(s)? Good luck getting a single definition of that.

Advertisement 4

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

One thing we all agree on: the utter horror of what some have done. But revising the law to require imprisonment with no hope of reformation for thousands of people who are able to atone and move forward reflects a social standard from 200 years ago. The most productive option is the one we have had for nearly 32 years: letting trained correctional staff do individual assessments of all offenders, including lifers. This is the law created and enacted under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives in 1992, bringing our system into the modern world.

The videographer MP riled some of his colleagues into holding an “emergency meeting” of the House of Commons Public Security Committee in early March, which resulted in a decision to hold a one-session inquiry into lifer classifications and “luxurious” conditions. No date has been set and perhaps wiser heads have prevailed. One can only hope that all parliamentarians will use the time to gain a better understanding of how and why the system works the way it does, and how it can be improved rather than degraded to horse-and-buggy days.

Mary E. Campbell is a retired lawyer and public servant who was part of the team that worked under the Mulroney government in modernizing Canadian correctional law.

Recommended from Editorial