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.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the courts have been very clear about the risks of this practice and have prescribed ways of regulating it to diminish those effects, why is that work not represented in this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, when two courts have ruled that the current use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court of B.C. in its scathing decision that clearly lays out what the government needs to do, and that has been shamefully appealed afterward, one can ask what exactly the government is trying to do with Bill C-83. Unfortunately, by all appearances, it seems that it wants to bypass these court decisions and what experts, civil society and the UN have said with regard to the use of solitary confinement. That is reason enough to oppose Bill C-83.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton Centre.

This initiative goes back quite a long way for me. I want to recognize the former member for Kitchener Centre, the hon. Karen Redman, who raised the issue of Ashley Smith's death and how it affected so many of us, in caucus and outside of caucus, particularly for people like me who are not from Kitchener.

I want to begin by reading the dry coroner's report, which states:

Coroner's Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith.

Aged: 19

Name of Deceased: Ashley Smith

Date and Time of Death: October 19, 2007, 8:10 a.m.

Place of Death: St. Mary's General Hospital in Kitchener

Cause of Death: Ligature strangulation and positional asphyxia

By What Means: homicide

That is the coroner's way of introducing what is in fact a substantive report that forms, in part, the basis for the initiative in Bill C-83.

The newspaper report is a little more graphic. It states:

Smith, 19, originally from Moncton, N.B., was imprisoned at the Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener, Ont., when she died in 2007.

She had tied a piece of cloth around her neck while guards stood outside her cell door and watched. They had been ordered by senior staff not to enter her cell as long as she was breathing.

...

In the last year of Smith's life, [she] was shuffled 17 times between nine institutions in five provinces.

She was clearly a troubled young lady, but there was still a massive failure on the part of the institutions that were responsible for housing her, and ultimately for her death.

The minister of the day, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, said after receipt of the coroner's report: “My thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family. I've asked my officials to review carefully the jury's recommendations”. That was on December 19, 2013. At that time, he was the federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.

Here we are, more than 10 years after Ms. Smith's death, looking at a bill that incorporates of many of the recommendations contained in the coroner's report. Clearly, nothing was done from 2007 to 2015, when the previous government ceased to be the government. Three years later, we are now preparing this, in some respects driven by the forces of civil society, but also by the reality of two lawsuits, which at its core means the current system is not sustainable.

Among the recommendations of the coroner's report is that CSC ensure that nursing services are available on site for all inmates; that CSC expand the scope and terms of psychiatric contracts to enable them to perform duties in a meaningful way; that decisions about clinical management of inmates be made by doctors, not CSC staff; that inmates must have access to an independent patient advocate system; that indefinite solitary confinement for prisoners be abolished; and that meetings between prisoners and support staff should not happen through food slots. That was something that happened frequently with Ms. Smith.

We have a long way to go, and I do not pretend to assume that Bill C-83 responds to each and every recommendation. My colleague, the NDP critic for public safety, highlighted some of the real questions that would be properly posed to the minister before a committee. Hopefully, the responses of both the minister and the head of Correctional Service Canada will be helpful in assuaging him about the concerns that are legitimately raised, both in the coroner's report and in the lawsuits that have come up.

The Prime Minister was so concerned about the inadequacies of, for want of a better term, solitary confinement that he actually incorporated it into the mandates of the justice minister and the public safety minister.

The justice minister's mandate says, “recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness.”

The mandate letter of the public safety minister, states, “address gaps in services to Indigenous Peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system”.

In 2013, we had a coroner's inquiry and recommendations coming out of the death of Ashley Smith in 2007. In 2013, the Conservative Party said that its thoughts and prayers went out to the family. The Liberal Party became the Liberal government in 2015. Incorporated into the mandate letters of two senior ministers were the requirement that they deal with these issues. Now we have Bill C-83 on those issues.

In addition, the corrections commissioner has further been mandated to help create a “safe, secure and humane” corrections environment and to address the physical and mental health of inmates, among other priorities. In fact, two weeks ago, the new head of CSC, Anne Kelly, spoke to her mandate. Indeed, members had every opportunity to question her about her mandate and also to see how this part of her mandate might well be fulfilled.

Most significant is that Bill C-83 would put an end to segregation. In Ontario and British Columbia, two constitutional challenges have found that the legislation governing the administrative segregation is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My friends in the Conservative Party might wish that to go away. They probably wish the charter would go away. Nevertheless, two of the most significant provinces in the country have said that the way things are being done is not sustainable and is contrary to the Constitution.

It is quite clear that what is motivating in part, beyond the mandates etc., is the reality of the NGO community and these class action lawsuits. The time to act clearly is now.

It is clear that large parts of the administrative segregation provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will no longer be in existence in two of Canada's most populous provinces. The Conservative Party's position seems to be to just let people sit in the current system anyway. That is neither a very morally nor legally sustainable position.

In my opinion, taking prisoners out of administrative segregation and putting them into a situation is a greater benefit to public safety.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 would eliminate administrative segregation. Instead, people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, would be assigned to a secure intervention unit, SIU. What would be the difference between a new secure intervention unit and administrative segregation?

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

Madam Speaker, there is clearly an effort to make the secure intervention unit an environment that allows very troubled prisoners to have more human interaction. There is a mandated time that they will be allowed to interact with other human beings. There is a mandated time that they have to interact with health care professionals. There is a mandated time in which there is a review of their past progress.

At the end of the day, almost everybody gets back on the street. We can wish that they come back onto the street whole, but that is just wishful fantasies. The prison system needs to be mandated to make people as able as possible to reintegrate into our society to maximize public safety.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, how will the desired outcomes of the bill be measured and can the Liberals tell Canadians today how much the implementation of the bill will cost?

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

Madam Speaker, the measurement of the success of the bill will be over time, and that is absolutely necessary. We currently have a system that is not working, that is constitutionally deficient, that offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that has a little too many Ashley Smiths in the system. The improvement will hopefully be measurable over time. I am sure the head of CCS will have some metrics to share with the committee.

With respect to funding, we are certainly in recovery mode from the previous government. The hundreds of millions of dollars that were cut out of the system are clearly having an impact, and that is extremely regrettable for public safety and for the rehabilitation and well-being of the prisoners.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the last two years, we have seen time and again that the Liberal government has a propensity to always walk along the line of a court judgment. The role of the House of Commons is to reiterate, sometimes through the preamble of a new bill, to the courts and the judge the intent of a bill of a rule that was put forward, accepted and voted on in the House. Jean Chrétien did that many times. He did it for advertising in the tobacco sector. Companies wanted the Supreme Court decision and Jean Chrétien tabled a bill with a preamble saying that the judges were wrong.

In this instance, why are the Liberals again and again following the judgment when they could have just reiterated the intent of our purpose in the House of Commons, to protect the citizens of Canada and to ensure that guards had the necessary tools to apply discipline?

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

Madam Speaker, I really feel bad that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government adheres to the rule of law. What a concept. We do have those of us in here who make law and we have those down the street, learned judges in the law, who interpret the law. When the interpretation comes back that this offends the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, which it does according to the two cases that are currently before the justices, then this body needs to adjust.

We are all subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We might not like that, but we are.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, since 2015, the government has been very clear about its commitments to Canadians. Broad criminal justice system reform is central to those commitments.

The government followed through, first by introducing major legislation that would protect the vulnerable, meet the needs of victims and keep our communities safe. It also promised to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.

Further, the government vowed to implement recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness. Today, the government is following through with it once again.

Bill C-83 represents a groundbreaking shift in Canada's approach to federal corrections. At its core is a focus on ensuring that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, one that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and protection of the public.

With this bill, the government proposes to eliminate segregation. We will eliminate it in a manner that continues to ensure institutions are secure. It will help reduce the rate of violence in federal institutions and provide inmates in need with support. This is an effective, practical and proactive approach to managing inmate safety.

For the first time in history, there will be a requirement in law for consideration of broad systemic and background factors unique to indigenous inmates in corrections decision-making.

All of that said, at the heart of this legislation is the elimination of segregation and the introduction of structured intervention units to manage inmates at higher risk. It would create structured intervention units, or SIUs, as a practical new tool for institutions. They would be established at numerous institutions. These SIUs would provide a safer environment for inmates. Inmates in SIUs would have the opportunity to be out of cell for at least four hours per day, offering more opportunity for human interaction.

If we are all being honest here, we know that there are times in prison that some inmates cannot be in the general population. These new SIU proposals would address the safety risks of those inmates who could not be managed in the mainstream inmate population.

Those members on the right are going to say that we should throw them in the hole. In fact, the Conservatives put out a release that pretty much said that. Those members on the left are going to say that we should not separate them at all, that we should leave them in the general population. However, when problems such as gang hostilities are brewing, this is not an option either.

We need a solution that would ensure that offenders can be separated from the general population when needed but also to ensure that those who cannot be in the general population for their safety or the safety of others can still have meaningful contact and programming.

Under this legislation, all interventions would be tailored to the specific needs of offenders to address the behaviours that led to their movement to the SIU.

They would have daily visits from health care professionals.

After five days in the SIU, a decision would be made about whether or not to keep the inmate there. That decision would take into account the inmate's mental health care needs and if appropriate unique indigenous factors, including systematic and background factors.

Inmates assigned to an SIU would have their correctional plan updated to ensure they receive the most effective programs at the appropriate time during their assignment in the unit and to prepare them for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population.

They would have meaningful human contact with other compatible inmates and in some circumstances even visitors.

This is a major step forward but not the only one we have taken.

The new bill builds on important investments the government has made to date.

Budget 2018 invested $20.33 million over five years and $5.54 million per year after that to further support the mental health needs of federal inmates. Funds will be largely targeted towards providing enhanced mental health supports for women in federal correctional facilities across Canada. That is on top of budget 2017 funding of $57.8 million over five years, and $13.6 million per year after that to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.

All of that said, our work is not done. We can all agree that we need to do better in our correctional system.

We are transforming the way we manage inmates whose behaviour poses a security and safety risk that cannot be managed within the mainstream inmate population. More broadly, we need to acknowledge and address the cycles that contribute to crime and the unique needs and risks of vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples.

We need to make sure we are not only holding guilty parties to account for what they have done, but that we are creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation for the safety of all.

This is the right choice at the right time. I call on all members to join me in supporting Bill C-83, so that our correctional institutions can better fulfill their important goals of safety and rehabilitation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that a structured intervention unit would be a good thing, since it would give individuals in segregation the possibility of human contact.

I am going to talk about two cases, two individuals. The first is a dangerous killer who keeps threatening people. He has to be placed in segregation because he is dangerous to others and might kill another inmate. The second is an inmate who fears for his life because he is being threatened. He wants to be placed in segregation because someone wants to kill him. He is therefore placed in the new structured intervention unit.

The violently angry killer and the inmate who fears for his life are sent to the structured intervention unit, where they are asked to engage in human contact.

Does my colleague think this will work?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have the example of two people, one is a hardened criminal we want to throw in the hole, another was tried and is serving for a lesser infraction. We want them to be together, and SIUs are created to study these situations. They will monitor things very closely and see what the needs of both these persons are, how we can bring them into the mainstream when their terms are finished and they are coming out, and how we can help to get them ready to integrate into society.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

As I have said before, my father was a warden in a minimum-security prison, and my mother was a prison guard.

I would like to know whether the hon. member across the aisle knows the difference between a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison. Inmates are incarcerated in one or the other for different crimes. Those in minimum-security institutions are serving less than two years, while those in maximum-security prisons are serving more than two years. The inmates in maximum-security prisons have committed serious offences, unlike those in minimum-security institutions.

Can my colleague tell me whether he knows the difference between a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during my presentation, I did mention clearly those who deserve to be treated in a nice way. We cannot say everyone will be treated in the same manner, for example, those who are there under extreme circumstances. They would be monitored differently, which is what we want. We want people to serve their jail terms and come out ready to go into the community.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have time for a very brief question.

The hon. government House leader has 30 seconds, and then we will have 30 seconds for an answer.