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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us. As always, we welcome your testimony before us.

I want to start with your last comment, if I could, on Bill C-83. Ms. Dabrusin and I have both been quite interested in introducing an amendment on the oversight issue. I certainly will take you up on your offer to work with your staff to include that in report stage when it comes back to the House.

On Bill C-83, we had Stan Stapleton from the Union of Safety and Justice Employees here last week. He talked about there being evidence showing that strong rehabilitative programs make communities safer and create a safer environment for both employees and offenders inside institutions. He also stated that Bill C-83 would require additional funding in order to complete the mandate we're hoping to complete with Bill C-83.

I think many of us were quite pleased to see, in the fall economic statement, $448 million allocated to corrections. I'm just wondering if you could tell the committee how that significant investment will be spent.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you again to discuss the estimates today.

I have a familiar cast of characters with me. Malcolm Brown is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. John Ossowski is the President of the Canada Border Services Agency. Anne Kelly is the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada. Jeff Yaworski is the Acting Director for CSIS. Gilles Michaud is Deputy Commissioner for the RCMP.

I would point out that as of last week, Deputy Commissioner Michaud has been elected Delegate for the Americas to serve on the executive committee of INTERPOL, representing our continent in that important organization.

Again, I want to thank members of the committee for the diligent work that you do on matters related to public safety. The volume and gravity of the key pieces of legislation, the policy changes, and the major investments that we have been making are very substantial. Your scrutiny and advice have helped to inform that work, which includes, for example, the new regime that Canada now has in place with respect to cannabis, a modernized national security framework that was developed in the context of Bill C-59 and new strong actions in relation to gun and gang violence. That's just to name a few.

We are in the midst of extraordinary changes to Canada's public safety environment, and Canadians are seeing some direct benefits. This month alone, we have announced millions of dollars in new funding for public safety projects from coast to coast. Those projects help our communities plan and prepare for natural disasters like floods. They improve our collective ability to effectively counter radicalization to violence in new and innovative ways. They help communities steer youth away from criminal and risky behaviour, such as guns, gangs and drugs.

Of course, there is also the $86 million that we announced earlier this month to support both the RCMP and the CBSA in their efforts to combat gun and gang violence. Keeping Canadians safe clearly requires efforts at every level, from communities to NGOs to governments to law enforcement and security agencies and beyond.

Today, in these estimates that are the subject matter for this meeting, we're looking at the spending authorities the portfolio needs to accomplish those objectives. Through these supplementary estimates (A), the Public Safety portfolio is requesting adjustments resulting in a net increase of $262 million. That represents a change of 2.6% over existing authorities. It's largely because several portfolio organizations have now received Treasury Board approval to increase appropriations and have received or are making transfers to and from other organizations.

All told, the approval of these estimates, including in-year adjustments, would result in total portfolio authorities increasing to $10.5 billion for the current fiscal year.

For my part today, I'll try to break down the key highlights of these changes across the portfolio, and I'll speak to just a few current priorities.

First, I note that these estimates provide a great snapshot of just how closely this portfolio must work together. Thirteen of the spending initiatives, with a total value of over $144 million, are horizontal in nature, requiring close collaboration among the organizations within this portfolio. I'll single out three in particular.

One of the most prominent is the $29.9 million requested in these estimates for the initiative to take action against guns and gangs, to which I alluded earlier. The evidence is clear: Gun and gang violence is a growing problem for Canadians.

Last year, I announced a total of new funding of $327.6 million over five years to help address this issue. A portion of that total—over $200 million over five years—will help provinces and territories address gun and gang issues through initiatives specific to the needs of their local communities.

The nearly $30 million that is requested in these estimates will help the CBSA, the RCMP and Public Safety Canada to carry out this collaborative new guns and gangs initiative.

On the theme of collaboration, I would also highlight the $50.3 million requested by my department to be transferred to the RCMP in support of the first nations policing program in various communities across Canada. Indigenous communities, like all other communities in Canada, should be safe places where families can thrive and economies can flourish. Public safety is essential for social and economic development. That's why I announced last year that the government is investing an incremental $291.2 million over five years in policing in first nations and Inuit communities currently served under the first nations policing program. That is the single largest investment in the program since it was first created back in 1991. For the first time, the funding will be both ongoing and indexed so that first nations communities can have the confidence that their police forces will have the resources they need into the future.

A third horizontal initiative is reflected in the $7.1 million requested for CSIS and CBSA to support the 2018 to 2020 immigration plan. As you know, Minister Hussen announced a multi-year plan that would welcome some 980,000 new permanent residents to our country by 2020. Public Safety portfolio organizations are very important partners in the immigration and refugee system, helping determine admissibility to Canada and providing security screening. Again, this funding will support their efforts.

Mr. Chair, that's just a quick snapshot of some of the collaborative work the portfolio is undertaking.

I'll briefly outline some of the other more prominent dollar amounts requested by some of our portfolio partners.

These estimates would provide the CBSA with a net increase in budgetary expenditures of $94.1 million. Along with supporting action against gun and gang violence, as well as immigration activities, that funding will also enhance the passenger protect program and other priorities.

The RCMP is seeking a net increase of $163.3 million in these estimates for the first nations policing program that I mentioned, and the guns and gangs initiative, as well as for G7 security, efforts related to the new cannabis regime, and much more.

Finally, I'll also highlight a requested net increase of $16 million to the spending authorities for CSIS, and an increase of $2.3 million to the Correctional Service of Canada. Minister Blair will have more details to share on today's estimates during the next hour of your meeting.

With respect to immediate priorities, it's safe to say that we won't be slowing down in the near future. For example, you can expect to see new measures responding to the mandate that we have given to the new commissioner of the RCMP. With the new cannabis regime in place, we'll be presenting legislation soon to make things fairer for Canadians who have been previously convicted of the offence of simple possession.

In closing, I understand that this committee will begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-83 later this week. I have been following the testimony and your lines of questioning very closely. Even though we are eliminating the practice of administrative segregation through this bill and introducing the new concept of structural intervention units, it is clear that some form of independent review mechanism for individuals who do not take part in programming within the structured intervention units would make stakeholders more comfortable with this very ambitious legislation. As indicated previously, I would be amenable to such a change, and I look forward to your work on clause-by-clause study.

As members likely know, creating a review mechanism would be a new and distinct function that would require a royal recommendation. That includes changing the terms and conditions of the original royal recommendation that was included at the beginning with Bill C-83, which of course would make such an amendment inadmissible at the committee stage.

If members are interested in such an amendment, my office would be more than willing to work with you in preparing such a report stage amendment. I would seek the appropriate royal recommendation from my cabinet colleagues.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear, Mr. Chair. Welcome to you in your role as chair today. I'm glad to be here and to have the opportunity to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have seven seconds.

On behalf of the committee, I do want to thank you for your contributions to this study of Bill C-83, Professor Parkes, Ms. Finestone, Mr. Pink and Mr. Rudin. This is all helpful.

With that, it does bring an end to our witness list.

I remind colleagues that you must have any amendments in by 4 p.m. on Monday. Also, given that I left for one minute and you brought a motion, I'm a little nervous about Tuesday with the ministers. I'm hoping that when I'm sitting here next Thursday I'll have no reports of any difficulties with the ministers.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I feel that at this time I need to suggest a motion. We've had nearly eight hours of testimony from witnesses. We've had numerous witnesses here testifying on Bill C-83. Other than Mr. Stapleton's cautious optimism about Bill C-83, and the minister's staff who support it, obviously, no one is supporting this legislation.

We're required and asked by the committee to have our amendments to committee on Monday. Right now, it looks like the entire bill needs to be redone. The entire bill needs amending. Our role as a committee, as I understand it, is to give oversight of the minister's legislation and to provide direction. We are to suggest changes based on the needs of Canadians as well as the expert advice we receive.

It is therefore imperative to me that this legislation be right, since the rehabilitative capacity of Corrections for our inmates as well as other lives are on the line—other inmates, guards, as well as the people in our communities. Given our committee's role and the importance of the legislation, I cannot in good conscience move ahead with this legislation. I don't think this committee should either. It is deeply flawed. Making minor amendments would only paint over a problem.

Additionally, this government appeared before the court of appeal yesterday and asked for an extension on this particular piece of legislation. They did so for a number of reasons—i.e., to meet the demand of the 2017 court order that the government had under December 18 to get this passed to make its solitary confinement oversight process compliant with the charter.

I, therefore, move the following:

That, in light of recent testimony the Committee has heard during its study of Bill C-83, the Committee suspend its study in recognition of the Bill's flaws and inadequate consultations; resume its study once the Government of Canada has consulted with involved parties and ensured there are no flaws; and that the Committee report this recommendation to the House.

I put this motion before the clerk in both languages.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'll start with Mr. Pink or Ms. Finestone.

The Elizabeth Fry Society states that administrative segregation isn't necessary, whereas the John Howard Society, the correctional officers and the Correctional Service of Canada maintain that it's sometimes necessary.

In your opinion, does Bill C-83 seek to eliminate segregation or to ensure the safe and secure implementation of segregation?

[Elana Finestone, Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for having us here.

I plan to show you that when you consult with the Native Women's Association of Canada you get comprehensive answers. I would like to discuss NWAC's answers with you today.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about NWAC. NWAC is a national indigenous organization with a mandate and resources dedicated exclusively to empowering disadvantaged and discriminated against women, girls and gender-diverse persons who are first nations, Inuit and Métis. NWAC examines and understands the systemic factors that contribute to their criminalization, their overrepresentation in federal prisons and their confinement under stringent conditions. We have extensive experience in advocating for indigenous women in the House of Commons, at inquests and in various courts. We know that indigenous women are now the fastest-growing population in Canadian prisons.

When discussing Bill C-83, it's important to understand the underlying factors leading to indigenous women's criminalization. I want to highlight the gendered effects of colonization on indigenous women and how these effects should meaningfully respond to their needs. Simply stated, it's about needs: how to assess their needs, how to support their needs and address them in the institution, and how to address those needs outside of the institution.

I don't have enough time to address all of NWAC's concerns about this bill. Suffice it to say that NWAC endorses the Aboriginal Legal Services' submission and echoes their call for more significant reforms in structured intervention units to—as they say—truly “address the underlying reasons” people are placed in segregation. NWAC also supports the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies' recommendation to abolish administrative segregation and similar isolating and restrictive practices in women's prisons.

First, I will touch on assessing indigenous women's needs. It is clear that the intergenerational effects of Canada's history of colonialism, residential schools, the gendered implications of the Indian Act on indigenous women's status and many other forms of displacement harm indigenous women. Almost all federally imprisoned indigenous women have had previous violent and traumatic experiences, such as physical and sexual abuse and problems with substance misuse. It's important for federal prisons to meaningfully respond to their realities in a way that's sensitive to these gendered impacts of colonization.

CSC's obligation to advance substantive equality and correctional outcomes for indigenous prisoners underscores the importance of using the Gladue principles to assess and respond to their needs, not their risks, but that is not what happens. Corrections overclassifies indigenous women's level of risk. A high-risk classification translates into restrictive and isolating prison conditions, where they don't have sufficient or culturally appropriate care. These restrictive, isolating and culturally inappropriate conditions are mentally and physically harmful to them. They perpetuate the gendered effects of colonization.

As you can see, indigenous women in federal prisons require the most support but are the most punished. CSC conflates risks with needs, and this is troubling, since the systemic and background factors elucidated in Gladue are intended to be mitigating. That's why NWAC wants to ensure that systemic and background factors affecting indigenous people are applied correctly.

We recommend that you amend proposed section 79 of Bill C-83 to ensure that every decision affecting federally imprisoned indigenous women and the gendered impacts of their systemic and background factors are considered and used only to assess prisoners' needs.

Now I'd like to talk about how these needs can be addressed in prison. The necessity of providing culturally appropriate and trauma-informed care was underscored during the community hearings at the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Those who testified about traumatic and harmful events needed resources to heal their reopened wounds. Proposed section 79.1 of Bill C-83 will likely call for federally imprisoned indigenous women to disclose their Gladue factors in order for their systemic and background factors, culture and identity to be properly understood and applied to CSC decisions.

Bill C-83 cannot ignore the re-traumatizing impacts their disclosure will have on them in the aftermath. In our brief, we recommend that culturally appropriate care be provided in these instances. NWAC recognizes the value that culture and spirituality can have in healing from the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual harms caused by Canada's colonial history. That's why it's important for federally imprisoned indigenous women who choose this healing path to have elders or indigenous spiritual advisers available to them. The element of choice is worth emphasizing when it comes to cultural and spiritual healing.

NWAC takes issue with the lack of consultation CSC affords indigenous communities, especially concerning culturally appropriate healing. The pan-indigenous approach to cultural healing in federal prisons is one example of CSC's culturally inappropriate practices. First nation, Métis and Inuit women are significantly different from one another. There are different communities within each of these groups, and each elder within these communities has their own teachings, traditions and protocol.

NWAC finds it concerning that not all people hired to be elders in prisons have earned the title of elder from their communities. To ensure that elders are responsive to the needs of the diverse groups of federally imprisoned indigenous women, NWAC recommends that CSC meaningfully and respectfully consults with federally imprisoned indigenous women and indigenous communities across Canada about the culturally appropriate use of elders and indigenous spiritual leaders in federal prisons.

We also call for a definition of “indigenous communities” that characterizes what legitimate indigenous organizations across Canada look like and excludes organizations that aren't legitimate. I'm happy to answer questions about that during the question period.

Thank you very much.

[Jonathan Rudin]

Again, thank you for the invitation to be here.

I don't want to spend too much time talking about Aboriginal Legal Services, but I do need to say that our spirit name is Gaa kinagwii waabamaa debwewin, which in Anishinaabemowin means “All those who seek the truth”.

We have often appeared as an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada and before committees of the Senate and the House.

As you know, aboriginal people are grossly overrepresented in the prison system. In the context of this bill, we have to recognize that aboriginal people are also overrepresented in administrative segregation. The correctional investigator reported that the percentage of segregated aboriginal inmates increased by 31% between 2005 and 2015, and that is compared to a growth of 1.9% for non-aboriginal inmates. Aboriginal offenders have consistently had the longest average stay in segregation of any group.

As was recently stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ewert, the reasons for aboriginal overrepresentation in prison do not lie with the inmates, but with the system they are living in. The Supreme Court said that discrimination experienced by indigenous persons extends to the prison system.

We want to focus our submissions today on three issues: the structured intervention units, the failure of the legislation to require the consideration of Gladue factors and the need for independent oversight, and finally the issue of community reintegration.

In our submission, as many other people have said, we have said that the creation of structured intervention units runs the risk of repeating the same harms that are acknowledged to be created with solitary confinement. The bill fails to meaningfully address the underlying reasons that inmates are placed in SIU. The focus on inmates' safety and institutional security in the bill fails to address the finding of the correctional investigator that many inmates who are placed in administrative segregation are primarily at risk to themselves because they are suicidal, engage in other self-injurious behaviour or pose challenges to management because they have mental health or cognitive limitations.

Instead of addressing the mental health needs of inmates, this legislation only guarantees a minimum of four hours outside the cell each day. Clearly, more significant reforms are needed to truly address the underlying reasons people are placed in segregation. Reforms, such as those proposed in the jury recommendations in the Ashley Smith inquest, would ensure that, rather than warehousing inmates with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues and those who are emotionally distraught, CSC would be required to provide appropriate assessment and treatment.

We echo NWAC's submissions about the crucial importance for aboriginal inmates of access to appropriate cultural and spiritual advisers.

Second, in this bill, proposed subsection 37.3(1) ensures the head of an institution reviews the situation of an inmate in SIU on a regular basis, but that protection was also provided for in the previous regulations. Those protections have failed to protect inmates from long periods of time in solitary.

The proposed legislation offers no change to the discretion an institution has had to continue to approve continuous segregation. What is glaringly absent from the proposed legislation is any recognition that the deprivation of an aboriginal person's liberty occasioned by placing them in solitary confinement requires the consideration of the Gladue factors. While CSC has repeatedly stated that the Gladue principles inform their actions, there is nothing in Bill C-83 that actually puts that into practice. The gap between rhetoric and reality in this regard has been remarked upon a number of times by courts that have said that, despite CSC saying that they apply Gladue principles, they simply don't.

Given the inability of CSC to incorporate Gladue principles into its work, and specifically with regard to solitary, it would be naive to think that simply adding those words to the legislation would change anything.

That's why it's so important that there be an independent oversight officer position created that would allow for actual meaningful use of Gladue. This recommendation came from the correctional investigator in 2014-15. That should be adopted and the present legislation should be amended to allow for this position. If that were to occur, we think the wording that Gladue principles would apply to the decisions of that person would actually have some meaning.

To wrap up, our last point is on community reintegration. We're very concerned about the change to the wording on who can participate in an inmate's return to an aboriginal community. This is outside of the admin's say, but it's part of the legislation. The amended legislation deals with who can work to take inmates in under sections 81, 84, or 84.1.

Under the current act, the law says that this can be done by an aboriginal community and that “aboriginal community means a first nation, tribal council, band, community organization or other group with a predominantly aboriginal leadership”.

In this bill, it's proposed that the term “Indigenous governing body” be used, which means “a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

We're very concerned about this. We have no sense of what it means to be “authorized”, and the addition of the link to section 35 certainly will disqualify many urban aboriginal communities from participating in the reintegration of their members. As you know, over half of the indigenous community in Canada lives in urban communities, and urban communities want to provide resources to those people who are being released from prison. We have an organization in Toronto, the Thunder Woman Healing Lodge, that is actively working to do this and would be denied this opportunity under this legislation.

We support the definition in an amendment that has been provided by NWAC, which would essentially take the definition in the current legislation, update the language and provide a better definition for what it means to be “predominantly” led by indigenous people. That, we suggest, is a change that would restore us to where we are instead of moving us back.

Meegwetch.

[Prof. Debra Parkes]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I've been researching issues associated with imprisonment in Canada for more than 20 years. My research focuses on charter rights issues in imprisonment, including solitary confinement, segregation, oversight and accountability of corrections, and on the imprisonment of women in particular.

In 2013 I convened an international conference on human rights and solitary confinement at a time when the issue was not on legislative and judicial agendas, so it's heartening to see attention being paid in courts and in Parliament to the human rights crisis and now well-known harms associated with segregating and isolating human beings. However, I have to say, it's disheartening to see this particular legislative response.

I'm going to spend my short time today on what I see as three key issues or problems with Bill C-83, with a focus on the regime for segregating prisoners.

One, the proposal for structured intervention units actually expands rather than eliminates segregated conditions. Two, the proposal for SIUs, as I'll call them, has many of the same deficiencies and even fewer procedural safeguards than the existing regime, which has been found unconstitutional. Three, implementing this bill will be costly in human and fiscal terms in ways that are counterproductive to its ends. These issues lead me to the conclusion that the bill won't achieve its objective of eliminating segregation, and in my opinion, it is also unconstitutional.

The first point is that the proposal for structured intervention units actually expands rather than eliminates segregated conditions. These provisions give incredibly broad powers to the commissioner to designate whole prisons or areas of prisons as SIUs. Purposes for placing in SIUs are also very broad, including from proposed paragraph 32(a), to “provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons”, undefined and unclear. It's very broad.

Proposed section 37.6 authorizes the imposition of SIU conditions and restrictions even before someone is in one of these new units, in other parts of a prison not designated as an SIU.

Also, with respect to time out of cell, proposed section 36, the opportunity for four hours out of cell and the opportunity for two hours of meaningful human contact are clearly a key aspect of this new regime that is said to make it very different from segregation, but there are many reasons built into the legislation that it might not be possible to actually achieve those hours out of cell. There is no actual way or mechanism or enforcement in the bill to ensure that prisoners are going to get the four hours outside of cell. I think you've heard from other witnesses this week and earlier that prisoners often don't even get the two hours outside of cell that they are supposed to be getting currently. There is no new provisions to make sure that actually happens.

The second point is that the proposal for SIUs has many of the same deficiencies and even fewer procedural safeguards than the existing regime, which has been found to be unconstitutional in the British Columbia case, and parts of it in the Ontario case. I know other speakers have and will speak about this. Not only is there no external oversight, but all of the reviews are internal. The regime itself has fewer safeguards and more discretion accorded to correctional officials. The internal review process includes vague factors such as “the appropriateness of the inmate's confinement in the penitentiary”, in proposed paragraph 37.3(3)(b).

Very much in this regime is left to regulations, which we, of course, do not have now and which are not subject to the legislative review process and this very process that the committee is engaged in right now, such as those proposed or future regulations related to the review by the commissioner after 30 days from the institutional head's decision to keep the person in SIU—which is actually 60 days from an initial placement, as I read the legislation.

As far as I can see, the much-discussed daily visit by a member of health care staff does not actually move the needle. As I read the legislation, it could be the nurse distributing medications. There is no requirement that it be some new form of review or care.

In addition, the existing requirement that the warden or designate visit the segregation area, or SIU, seems to be no longer required under Bill C-83 although it appears in the transfer part of the legislation.

Similar is the fact that health care staff recommendations that a person not be in SIU do not need to be heeded by the warden. There is no mechanism for that, again, and even the obligation is now gone that the warden meet with the prisoner who they have decided must remain in segregation to explain reasons and allow representation. It's replaced with a basic provision that the institutional head will meet with everyone in SIU every day.

Why are there fewer procedural safeguards? The reason for this seems to be that the government has attempted to create a system of isolating prisoners that is not called segregation, and they argue it's sufficiently different from segregation. Therefore, I think the logic goes that none of the findings of fact in the courts, in international human rights standards or the charter rulings about segregation apply. Minister Goodale said in his testimony to this committee:

The point is this. We are getting rid of administrative segregation. The arguments pertaining to administrative segregation are thus no longer relevant.

That is what is so concerning, the idea that slapping a new coat of paint and a new sign on a segregation unit and aspiring to have people confined for fewer hours in there, but not ensuring it, takes us out of the purview of the charter and human rights laws. In my view, of course, it's clear that the charter does apply and this regime suffers from many of the same deficiencies as the existing one, and some new ones, and will likely be found to be unconstitutional.

I will leave it there.

[Jonathan Rudin, Program Director, Aboriginal Legal Services]

Thank you very much.

Aboriginal Legal Services appreciates the opportunity to speak to the public safety committee today on Bill C-83—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank Ms. Frank, Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Paterson for their contribution to our study of Bill C-83.

With that, we'll suspend for a moment or two and re-empanel.

[Jim Eglinski]

Thank you for the comment you made. I think Ms. Dabrusin said the same thing earlier. The interaction between prison guards and the inmates is so crucial.

I know when I attend the Grand Cache Institution in my area, which is medium security, I've wandered through there with the guards and intermingled with the prisoners. You see a very strong relationship between some guards and the prisoners, a very good working relationship. Then you see some intensity, as I guess I'll describe it.

Are we training our young prison guards adequately to deal with these prisoners? I used to escort prisoners for a number of years in my role as a police officer, and if you work with them and have a good relationship, it makes it so much easier.

Are we giving enough training, and will Bill C-83 do it for us?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That was the part that I was hoping....

About the oversight, it seems like a smaller point, but I've been looking at the Ontario legislation, which never did come into effect but did pass three readings. It requires that written reasons be provided when a person is transferred into, in that case, a segregation unit.

I was wondering whether it would be helpful if Bill C-83 were amended to include a requirement for written reasons, including what alternatives were considered for that transfer. There would be some type of a record provided to the inmate, and it would also just be available so that when you get to the oversight part, you have something at least to track it back.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to begin with Mr. Paterson. I was wondering if you have a copy of Bill C-83 on your computer in front of you.

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

Thank you.

With the time I have, my last question goes to Mr. Stapleton.

The minister has stated, in his statement to the committee, that the priority of corrections, and his priority, is to ensure the safety of staff, inmates and the public with Bill C-83. Do you feel this legislation ensures that happens in the way that it's intended?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Paterson, the minister stated, when he appeared at committee, that C-83 would effectively eliminate segregation altogether.

Do you believe, as you understand Bill C-83, that statement is an accurate description of what will happen inside the bill?