Bill C-83 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation;
(b) authorize the Commissioner to designate a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary as a structured intervention unit for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons;
(c) provide less invasive alternatives to physical body cavity searches;
(d) affirm that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to support the autonomy and clinical independence of registered health care professionals;
(e) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to provide inmates with access to patient advocacy services;
(f) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada has an obligation to consider systemic and background factors unique to Indigenous offenders in all decision-making; and
(g) improve victims’ access to audio recordings of parole hearings.
This enactment also amends the English version of a provision of the Criminal Records Act.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-57, the sustainable development bill.

Tomorrow morning, we will start debate at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation. Following question period, we will debate the Senate amendments to Bill C-21, the Customs Act.

Next week, we will be debating various government bills.

I would like to remind the House that, in accordance with the order adopted this morning, there will be an exploratory debate Monday evening at the usual time of adjournment. The debate will be on the subject of the opioid crisis in Canada.

Public Safety and National Security

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back, under very constrained timelines, with extensive amendments.

I want to take this opportunity to thank staff, officials and members for their extensive co-operation in presenting this report to the House today.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will read this.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has considered Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act and wishes to make the following recommendations to the government:

First, given the testimony that the committee heard from the correctional investigator and other stakeholders, and the fact that there are only 10 women currently housed in administrative segregation units across the country, the committee strongly encourages the Correctional Service of Canada to consider alternatives to segregation in women's institutions such as the pilot program proposed in 2016 by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies;

Second, that the Correctional Service of Canada examine the placement and/or transfer of an inmate to a facility far away from their home or community and the impact of the transfer on the inmate's contact with family and an individual identified by the inmate as a support person.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

We'd like to add to the report. After the study of Bill C-83, the committee wishes to highlight the opposition members' disapproval of this flawed bill and report the following to the House:

- That the Committee’s role is to review legislation, using all the information needed to make informed decisions

- That the Minister has withheld information deemed by Members of the Government, Opposition, and witnesses to be essential in determining the effectiveness of the legislation—namely the cost and implementation of the Bill

- That Members of the Committee have decided to provide blind faith in the Minister despite the role of the Committee to hold the Minister to account

- That the House be made aware that this legislation was deemed by witnesses and Members as incomplete without any costing or implementation and should not proceed without detailed plan and explanation from the Minister.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't want to belabour it because it appears to have good support, but I would say that the “least restrictive” language was included in Bill C-56. It was previously absent in Bill C-83. You now have put in “least restrictive measures” in a couple places. This does ensure consistency. Also, it is congruent with advice from many of the witnesses. I won't take time at this late hour to remind you of all the witnesses who think this is a good amendment.

Thank you.

[Angela Connidis]

With all respect, I would say that there are two things to consider when you are making your decision.

One is that the major tenet of this provision is about “least restrictive measures”. You've just passed two amendments dealing with least restrictive measures, and you would want to have consistency throughout the act.

As well, one of the provisions in Bill C-83 dealt with audio recordings before the parole board, so in fact we have opened up provisions relating to the parole board.

[Jim Eglinski]

Chair, I just move that we make an amendment that Bill C-83 in clause 31 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 14 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 96(v) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(v) for the organization, training-including training related to mental health and to safety-discipline, efficiency, administration and good management of the Service;

This came to light when Stanley Stapleton was here, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, who suggested that additional training was needed within the institution, especially with the new sorts of guidelines coming into place under section 83. We would like to add that the training become part of section 83.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again looking at the question of how Gladue principles inform actions, but there's nothing in the current legislation that actually puts those principles into practice. This would ensure that the Criminal Code Gladue provision will be incorporated into BillC-83. It's a very simple amendment. It's one that is supported by the Native Women's Association of Canada, by Aboriginal Legal Services, and by Lois Frank, who gave evidence before this committee as the Gladue report writer from the Alberta department of justice.

Thank you.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you again.

This amendment is that Bill C-83, in clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 11 with the following:

79.1 In recognition of the systemic discrimination Indigenous offenders face in the correctional system and the Service's obligation to advance equality in correctional outcomes for Indigenous offenders, the Service shall, when assessing an Indigenous offender' s needs in order to make a decision under this Act affecting the offender, take the following in-

Again, in my opinion, this something that we just need to do. I hope we have support.

[Juline Fresco]

It would not allow the specificity that we believe Bill C-83 clarifies, which is that when the CSC is entering into an agreement with a community, what they're actually entering into is an agreement with the indigenous organization or indigenous governing body. It wouldn't give us the clarity that we believe the bill has at this point.

[Juline Fresco]

Thank you. I'm going to talk a bit about what was done in Bill C-83 with respect to the definitions.

Subsection 81(1) of the act is amended by replacing the term “aboriginal community” with “Indigenous governing body” and “or any Indigenous organization”. The reason is that when a contract is entered into with an indigenous community, it can't be with the “community”; that's not an entity you can actually enter into an agreement with contractually. In fact, it's the “indigenous governing body” and an “indigenous organization”, so that is the change that we made in the act.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That's me. Let's see if I get it right this time.

I move to amend Bill C-83 in clause 23 by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 11 with the following:

lndigenous community means an organization, a community, a band, a tribal council, a nation or any other group with a predominantly Indigenous leadership.

I further move to amend it by adding after line 14 on page 11 the following:

predominantly lndigenous leadership in relation to a group, means a group—the majority of whose board of directors are First Nation or non-status First Nation, whether residing on reserve land or not, Métis or Inuit—that advocates for culturally appropriate and community-based alternatives to confinement for Indigenous inmates.

As I hope everyone in this room appreciates deeply, this is important terminology to have moving forward.

Thank you.

[Angela Connidis]

I think the prescriptiveness of it means that some indigenous leadership groups may not fall within this definition. It would limit which groups could be part of an indigenous community. Recognizing that Bill C-83 actually refers to indigenous “organization” rather than indigenous “community”, that definition wouldn't apply to what we have: indigenous organization.

[Luc Bisson]

Essentially, strip searches are currently available under the act. My understanding is that under Bill C-83, they would continue to be available.

To reiterate, the concern is about what this would mean if there are medical conditions, or if the body scanner is at the front entrance and we're moving an inmate from one area to another where a body scanner isn't present. What would this mean in terms of how we would operationalize this?

There are concerns from that perspective.