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.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This was cited in the OCI's 2012-13 annual report.

He said:

replacing the...“least restrictive” principle with “necessary and proportionate” measures seems to add an unnecessary layer of ambiguity and discretion where precision and consistency are required. This language may make it more difficult for my staff to hold CSC to account for decisions and actions carrying significant life, liberty and security interests (e.g....security classifications....

Mr. Zinger, if Bill C-83 had not amended the CCRA to restore the “least restrictive measures” principle back in 2019, do you believe Correctional Service Canada would have had more discretion under the CCRA when determining an inmate's classification?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I'm sorry, Dr. Zinger. I have limited time. I will move on.

Prior to Bill C-83, under the changes made by the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, the language of “least restrictive measures” was changed to “necessary and proportionate”. Is that correct?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me correct the record once again. I am going to quote to deal with the misinformation Mr. Lloyd just put on the record. A Globe and Mail article stated:

However, a spokesperson for Public Safety Canada says Bernardo's transfer would have happened under the previous wording of the law, which was brought in by the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

That version of the law stipulated that prisoners should be kept in prisons with the “necessary” restrictions. When the law was originally created by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in the early 1990s, it used the term “least restrictive”.

“The result of this transfer was not affected by the passage of Bill C-83. A transfer would have also occurred under the previous language of 'necessary' restrictions,” said Public Safety spokesperson....

Mr. Chair, while the members opposite giggled and talked through that, I see why, because they want to act tough on crime but actually don't have the facts to back it up. It was actually two Conservative governments that had the language “least restrictive” and “necessary”, which would still have allowed for this particular transfer.

If we're going to talk about how to make changes to create safer public safety conditions in corrections, then we should at least be dealing with facts, not the fiction created by the Conservatives. Let them giggle, because they haven't had a great outing here today.

My last question I want to actually put forward to Mr. Sandelli.

In your opening remarks you spoke about programming and some of the programming work your members do. Thank you for that, because I'm sure it is incredibly difficult and a weight that is felt by you and your members. This study is looking at all prisoner classification and transfers, not just one individual. In lots of those instances, there may come a day when even dangerous offenders have served their time, based on a court decision, and have to then be released into the public.

How would you feel, from a public safety perspective, if an offender who had served their time went from maximum security, with no programming and no rehabilitation, directly into the community? Do you think that would make our communities safer?

[Jeff Wilkins]

In fact, there was. I know I myself was actually involved in a refusal to work situation before Bill C-83, because there were subpopulations being created with, as I iterated earlier, what would normally have been classified as segregated inmates, mostly inmates who would have been segregated for protective custody reasons.

There were areas of the institution, specific ranges, that were associated with different movement routines, so they couldn't associate with the general population.

The CSC was, in fact, then housing inmates in the least restrictive manner.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilkins, I have a copy of your organization's submission to this committee back in 2018, when we were first reviewing Bill C-83. I note that your third request was: “The reversion of language that now recommends response options be 'least restrictive' to what was previously 'most appropriate'.”

The fact is that prior to Bill C-83 the term “least restrictive” was not in the CCRA. It was actually changed in 2012 under our Conservative government, under the Safe Streets and Communities Act, where we removed the term “least restrictive” and replaced it with the “most appropriate or the necessary restrictions”.

I find the report, the review report, that CSC released over the summer in response to the Bernardo transfer very interesting. It's very interesting to me because it says Millhaven Institution developed “a plan for institutional integration. These efforts were part of an institutional management strategy to establish cohorts...with the underlying goal of alleviating subpopulation pressures, and to provide a less restrictive environment for offenders.”

Previous to Bill C-83, was there a requirement for federal penitentiaries to have strategies to create a less restrictive environment for offenders?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Wilkins, you were correct when you said that there was, previous to Bill C-83, language that would have allowed for reclassification. It was actually in the 1990s, under Brian Mulroney, that the term “least restrictive” was first used. This issue has actually been going on for successive governments in terms of language, and it wasn't actually Bill C-83, so your memory served you correctly with respect to the fact that there has been back-and-forth.

“Least restrictive”, again, was actually introduced by Brian Mulroney, and the same language actually existed under the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper, so this suggestion that it was somehow a change that Bill C-83 brought forward, which created new language, is simply false. That needs to be put on the record.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, there are sometimes misperceptions about what maximum, medium and minimum security classifications mean. It's not a condition of punishment or a situation based on an outcome of the court case of whatever the offender has committed and been found guilty of, but about public safety at large and the risk of escape.

Mr. Shipley brought up escapes, but he conveniently left out some data, so I wanted to put that on the record. In 2006-2007, there were 37 federal prison escapees in Canada. In 2007-2008, there were 33. In 2008-2009, there were 24. In 2009-2010, there were 31. In 2010-2011, there were 17. The list goes on. The next year, 16, 24, 13, 15, 18. In 2016, it went down to 9; then in 2017-2018 it was 18; then 2018-2019 it went to 13 escapees. It has consistently gone down. In 2019-2020 there were 12. In 2020-2021 there were 11.

The suggestion that Bill C-83 has opened up this new least restrictive measure is, frankly, false. That was introduced by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government. Regarding the suggestion that reclassifications have led to prisoner escapees, actually there have been fluctuations, but the highest number was in 2006-2007, with 37 escapees. I want to put those facts on the record, because that really matters if we're going to talk about reclassification and security levels.

Mr. Wilkins, you spoke about corrections officers and their role. You said you have suggestions on how your union members' voices can be part of that ongoing consultation, and I think there are improvements that need to be made here. I would be happy to receive them as a committee for any recommendations on that.

I'd also like to ask a question. The Conservatives have proposed a system through a private member's bill that would actually see the entirety of an inmate's classification.... If it starts at maximum, it stays that way. There would be no opportunity for good behaviour, for rehabilitation mechanisms.

Do your members have concerns for their own safety if there are no interventions for rehabilitation and for measures to be put in place for good behaviour and promoting that sort of program in facilities? Would there not be a larger risk to your members if there was no opportunity for rehabilitation and programming?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I was reading your 2018 submission on Bill C-83, and your recommendation was that the current language was “the most appropriate restrictions”, not “the least restrictive”, so it was not the least restrictive; it was the most appropriate restrictions.

With the introduction of “least restrictive”, we've certainly seen, through the review that was conducted after this transfer, that it had an impact.

Paul Bernardo was denied reclassification in June 2022, but then, according to the review report, they changed their decision in July 2022, just a month later. Is this a normal practice, for them to change a decision in just one month?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I'm quite certain that before Bill C-83, there was something in the CCRA that talked about least restrictive. I remember making the argument many times, even as a local president, that inmates who would normally be placed in segregation at the time, before Bill C-83, were being placed in different ranges, with different population management strategies occurring for those offenders. My example at the time was that there's general population and then there's segregation. There is no other population. If they can't be managed in general population, then they have to be in segregation. I was always quoted—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you believe that this least restrictive principle, as enshrined in C-83, contributed to the reclassification and transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security facility?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you also attribute the addition under C-83 of the so-called “least restrictive principle” as partially responsible for this trend?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

In your experience, has the number of prisoner transfers, COVID notwithstanding, from maximum to medium security increased since Bill C-83 was brought into effect in June 2019?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This is the 2022-2023 fiscal year. There were 505 prisoners moved out of maximum security into medium security. Now, prior to Bill C-83's coming into effect in June 2019, would you consider this a high number compared to the numbers in previous years?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Wilkins. Correctional statistics before the implementation of Bill C-83 showed that the number of inmates in a maximum-security facility dropped by as low as eight or as high as 89 on an annual basis.

In 2021, the first full year after Bill C-83 was implemented, that number almost doubled, to 158. I've received an ATIP response that states that 505 inmates were transferred out of maximum security to medium security last year alone, ending March 2023. There are anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 inmates in maximum security in Canada. In your experience, are 505 transfers out of maximum security a high number in any given year?

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

Yes, briefly.

I just want to bring this back to why this motion was brought forward in the first place. Canadians were shocked and outraged at the transfer. That was it. The families and the communities that were impacted by these tragedies were outraged. Across the country, people were outraged.

Here is an example. We realized that there is a deficiency in the legislation. The intent of having a study is to show that the deficiency exists and that Bill C‑83 needs to be amended. To put pressure on government to do so was the intent behind this, to actually have a positive impact on victims, not only now but moving forward, so that they feel heard.

While I agree that there have been discussions among the parties here, I don't feel that brushing this off by having one meeting actually serves the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish.

I can't support one meeting. I'm sorry.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My colleague across the way, Ms. O'Connell, suggested that the Conservatives supported Bill C‑83. That is not what happened. Bill C‑83 was voted down by the Conservatives and passed by the Liberals in 2019. To make this a partisan issue, that Conservatives are somehow complicit because the Liberals failed to do their job and the minister failed to do his job and reverse this transfer, and he could have.... Mr. Bittle obviously didn't listen to my comments in regard to the acknowledgement that CSC followed the law. The law is in error. The whole idea of Mr. Baldinelli's bill is to suggest that we need to correct the error. That's the whole point of our conversation today. We can't allow this to continue to happen, so we have to change the legislation. That's the whole purpose behind this.

Whether we have three meetings or five meetings, it doesn't matter. The idea is that, as a committee, we have a responsibility to ensure that this doesn't keep happening, that we don't have people who are a risk to public safety transferred again to minimum-security or medium-security facilities. You talk about the impact on families. During the transfer, the communities certainly spoke on what this did to those communities, something that happened years and years ago.

This is not a partisan issue. I have no intention of making it a partisan issue. However, the blame needs to be placed squarely where it is: The Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, failed to deal with this when he could have. Yes, CSC followed the law. That doesn't mean the law was perfect. It doesn't mean the law was right. It's flawed, which is why the Conservatives voted against it in 2019.

Thank you.