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.

[Angela Connidis]

That's in proposed subsection 37(1) of Bill C-83.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that Justice Arbour's recommendation dates back to when I was in elementary school. I'm not saying that to be glib. I'm saying that to demonstrate how long-standing this issue has been.

I think it's pretty clear from the minister's comments and his inability to provide me with an adequate response that he has already prejudged what he believes this will look like.

Both Bill C-56 and Bill C-83 have had nothing in terms of proper independent review with any kind of teeth. Moreover, I think the very fact that the government is appealing the B.C. decision has just left a bunch of bread crumbs that do not allow me, unfortunately, and with all due respect, to make the same leap of faith. I believe, from what I've heard from witnesses, what I've read and what I've heard Justice Arbour say many times over the years, that this is the way to go.

At the end of the day, I go back to what Justice Arbour articulated as the reason here: The minute you start going beyond a certain number of days without this type of review, you're actually influencing sentencing. You're changing the punishment that has been brought out by a court of law on an individual.

I understand that circumstances can change within a prison, but unfortunately, history has borne out that this has been abused and has gone against the way our system is supposed to work. I believe this is the only way we can properly correct that abuse. Having heard witness testimony, and through my own discussions with stakeholders, that's what I believe.

Unfortunately, on this file, with the dithering we've seen from the minister, both with his actions in appealing the decision through the Department of Justice and in his own testimony, I just do not have that same faith.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this amendment we're trying to be ambitious on two fronts: applying the Mandela rules relating to the number of aggregate days in a 365-day period, and going back to Justice Arbour's recommendation for judicial review.

I didn't have time to finish debating the minister on that point, but I don't believe it's something that requires royal recommendation or I imagine I would have had a ruling from the chair on this front. I will ask for a recorded vote.

The amendment would read that Bill C-83, in clause 10, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 4 with the following:

unit is to end as soon as possible, and may never be, subject to subsection (2), for more than 15 aggregate days in a 365-day period.

(2) The Federal Court may, on request by the institution head, authorize the confinement of an inmate in a structured intervention unit for up to an additional 15 aggregate days in a 365-day period, as long as the aggregate days of confinement of the inmate in such a unit, irrespective of the penitentiary, do not exceed 60 in the 365-day period.

[Angela Connidis]

Yes, that's correct. A health care professional is involved. Under Bill C-83, a health care professional could recommend the alteration of conditions or the termination of confinement, and the institutional head would have to take that into account. A health care professional visits daily, and health care advice has to be taken into account in any decision related to placement in an SIU.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Again, this is new language in clause 8, adding, after line 31 on page 3, the following:

(2) If the Commissioner plans to assign a new security classification to a penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary, he or she must undertake consultations with nearby communities, staff members and any other impacted stakeholder identified by the Service.

(3) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a new security classification in writing, publish it on the departmental website at least 15 days before the change takes effect and notify the Minister of the change.

The whole idea behind this is that currently, the way Bill C-83 reads, it provides powers that are far too broad for the reclassification of facilities. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that all authorities have the appropriate checks and balances in place. As we've seen recently with healing lodges and other prison transfers, there is a limited accountability of the service to local communities, to victims and the stakeholders. That is the motive behind this amendment: that public consultation is required when the commissioner wants to reclassify an institution. I believe it needs to be in law, not in regulations, so that it's set in stone.

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

Thank you.

This is similar to the other one. The new language, because there is no current one, is replacing line 31 on page 3 with the following:

any area in a penitentiary by taking into account the physical limitations and staffing needs of the penitentiary as well as the services it offers.

(2) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a change to a security classification in writing and notify the Minister of the proposed change at least 15 days before the change takes effect.

Bill C-83 seems to provide unlimited powers to the commissioner of corrections to reclassify institutions or parts of institutions. While this is perhaps a necessary use of authority in many circumstances, it should have checks and limits within it.

I think a very reasonable amendment is to put a limit on this. You can't [Technical difficulty—Editor] segregation unit unless it meets the needs of the type of classification. The government, through regulations, sets what these parameters are, and the commissioner has to operate within them.

That's the whole purpose behind this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for that.

With that, we will engage in the business of the day. I thank the officials for being here.

We start off with what I hope is a pattern here, which is, shall clause 1 of Bill C-83 carry? There are no amendments.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

That puts us into clause 2. The first amendment to clause 2 is NDP-1. We'll go with NDP-1 and note the relationship between NDP-1 and PV-1.

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

[Jim Eglinski]

I think, Mr. Minister, that the group is aware of that, and there are differences of opinion from a number of different people who gave us evidence.

I'd like to step away from Bill C-83 now.

You were talking about different finances. Last year you talked about $327.5 million over five years going for guns and gangs, and $291.2 million over five years going to the RCMP to support first nations policing.

Has any of that $291.2 million been spent to date?

[Jim Eglinski, Yellowhead, CPC]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start off with Bill C-83 again. I've listened to most of the witnesses—the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the correctional investigator, the union, etc. They weren't all Conservative witnesses; they were Liberal witnesses as well as our witnesses, but no matter where they came from, I cannot recall even one of them, throughout the evidence that they gave us, who said that they were consulted prior to the implementation and the drawing up of Bill C-83.

Now, I did go back and talk to some union people I know. I asked them if they had anything to do with that, and they said they'd been told about it, but they'd had no input as to the laying out of the framework.

Your government talks a lot about transparency and working together. How did Bill C-83 come about? Who drafted this legislation that seems to be opposed by everyone who comes to see us?

We're going to have a very interesting time discussing it in the near future.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Funding for improved mental health services has been included in the last two federal budgets. We have already taken some steps to begin to address those issues, which went unaddressed for so very long.

In addition to that, we are proposing the very strongly enhanced mental health care services that are envisaged in this new concept of a structured intervention unit. There's some funding that was put in the system in the last two budgets. This new funding, to go along with the implementation of Bill C-83, will add further resources still.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

We can continue to debate that particular piece, but I do want to get to some of my other points with the limited time that I have.

In keeping with that spirit, the last correctional investigator report talked about the lack, for example, of psychiatric services in corrections, and when I look at the numbers that are here, it seems very backloaded.

One of the concerns that has been raised about Bill C-83 is that notwithstanding this debate that we may have over whether it's essentially the same thing under a new name or not, putting that debate aside, the fact remains that there is concern on whether the lack of psychiatric services and other mental health services would mean that some individuals would still find themselves being put into these units because of a lack of resources. When you see such back-ended funding, is there not a concern that more needs to be done to address that issue, something that was raised in the correctional investigator's report just a few weeks ago or a week or so ago?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope I make it to the end of my seven minutes without my voice conking out here.

Minister and officials, thank you all for being here.

I just want to continue on the Bill C-83 piece there, and what you talked about with respect to royal recommendations. I want to delve into that a little bit, since you did bring it up.

It seems to me that you aren't imagining a specific solution, because there are some solutions that would not require a royal recommendation, one of them being, for example, judicial oversight, which dates back to a recommendation from Justice Arbour. There's currently a regulatory framework that has been used as an example of something that could be used for independent oversight, which is the independent chairperson, which exists in the disciplinary context.

Given that you've mentioned the need for a royal recommendation, that precludes there being a specific remedy in mind for this particular criticism, and to Mr. Motz's point, he did steal some of my thunder, because I have never seen a bill get panned so unanimously by committee witnesses the way this one has.

I'm wondering if you're envisaging something in particular and if you've already discounted the possibility, for example, of judicial oversight, which would not require a royal recommendation.

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

I'm just going to move to Bill C-83, Minister. You spoke to it briefly, and your estimates say that $448 million will be flowing to CSC over the coming years to deal with this legislation.

Now, I don't know if you've been following the testimony at committee, but pretty much everybody except your own officials, on both sides of the political spectrum, has spoken against this bill. They've said it's a bad bill. I'm just curious to know whether you're going to be withdrawing it. If you don't withdraw it, will you at least take it back to the drawing board and redo it so that it actually will receive public support?

There's been no consultation. Everybody who came said they were never consulted. I'm just kind of curious to know.... If you're spending that kind of money and we're supposed to trust you that the regulations are going to lay out how this money is going to be spent, the bill certainly doesn't. I'm at a loss, and everybody who came in as witnesses from, as I said, all sides of the issue was very concerned and confused as to how it will actually play out and whether it will make a difference.

Most of them said it would not make a difference on offender rehabilitation. It would not make a difference on safety within the institution. It wasn't going to meet the objectives that, as you had indicated, Bill C-83 was intended to meet. I'm just curious to know how the regulations are going to identify what $448 million is actually going to do to improve our correctional system.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The funding is largely dedicated, Ms. Damoff, to the purpose you have indicated. Clearly, for Bill C-83 to be successful and effective in eliminating the old practice of administrative segregation and in instituting the totally new concept of structured intervention units, two things have to happen: The law needs to be changed—that's what Bill C-83 accomplishes—and then you have to back it up with the necessary resources. You have to make sure that the Correctional Service of Canada has people with the right skill sets in the right places at the right times to provide the kinds of intervention that will be effective with the offender population, interventions that will be entirely new and that will not—I say this very deliberately—simply be administrative segregation with a different coat of paint.

I know there has been concern expressed around this table and among some of the stakeholders about the effectiveness of the reform. That's why the funding is critical. It's to make sure that this is real and meaningful change. The old procedures will be gone. There will be a new system in place. That will require money, and that's largely what the commitment in the economic statement was for.

[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.