I'm not applauding the government for it, because it allows for restrictions to be made on visits with family, friends, and other persons. There could be no restrictions on that, but also there could be restrictions on that. This is a new change to segregation for a period of 30 days. There was nothing there that said that you could restrict visits from anyone else during that period, and now there is. This is not a softening of the existing regulations.
In terms of restitution for damaged property, I'm not sure how someone who is inside a penitentiary can necessarily be exposed to restitution orders if they have no means of making restitution. It seems to me that this is another means, I presume, of saying that if someone is damaging.... I think one of the standard offences for inmates is damaging government property. If you trash a cell or act out in a manner that destroys a mattress or in another manner, you can be charged with an offence. But this also talks about restitution for property damaged or destroyed to a value.... I don't know what the values are. But it seems to me that someone who is in a penitentiary is not in a position to meet very much in the way of a restitution order. This would just cause further restrictions on a person's ability to rehabilitate.
Similarly, restricting visits from family again acts against the importance of maintaining contact, which contributes to the rehabilitation of the offender. To put in place a regime that says that you can use that denial of contact as a form of penalty offers another opportunity to avoid the necessity of contact with your family for the purposes of rehabilitation as well as the incentive associated with knowing that you can have a continued relationship with your family member in the hope of rejoining them, and rejoining society while you're at it.
Those are concerns I have about those particular clauses. Perhaps some of my colleagues would like to add to that.