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

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Give us some proof.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a member asked if we have data to back it up. We know that programming in our correctional facilities makes a positive difference. It prevents and minimizes repeat offences. If we can do that and prevent crimes from happening in the first place by having better and more sound laws, we will have fewer victims.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone has the floor and other members have the urge to ask questions or make comments during a speech, they should wait until it is time for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague expressed at great length and volume that he never hears the Conservatives willing to talk about our justice system. That is ironic, because we actually asked about the rights of the accused several times today in question period, and our Attorney General would not talk about ensuring that the rights of the accused are respected.

The Criminal Code, section 718, has the principles of sentencing for our justice system. They are six: denunciation; deterrence; separation of offenders, that is protection of the public; rehabilitation; reparation; and promotion of responsibility. We agree that all of those are important: rehabilitation, particularly for non-violent offenders, and deterrence, denunciation, promotion of responsibility and protection of the public.

There should be separation of the offenders in grave cases of murder, rape and those sorts of cases. That is the distinction between us.

The member talked a lot about victims in his speech. When we look at those principles of sentencing, how can the member in good conscience say that an offender like Terri-Lynne McClintic, who should be denounced by the public, from whom the public should be protected, and who should be deterred, could be transferred to a healing lodge? How can the member defend that in accordance with the Criminal Code section 718?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would make that his example. We need to recognize that it was the Progressive Conservative Party that created healing lodges. I applaud it for that. It was not the current Conservative reform party; it was the Progressive Conservative Party of the Brian Mulroney days that created the healing lodge. They then told the correctional facilities that if inmates were in a medium-security facility, they could use the healing lodges.

What happened was under Stephen Harper, the very individual the member is talking about was transferred to a medium-security facility, which then allowed that individual to go to a healing lodge. When the Conservatives were in government, the policy was to hush up, say nothing and allow the transfer. If that transfer had been prevented, the individual in question would never have been able to go to a healing lodge.

However, true to form, the Government of Canada, under the Liberal Party, supports Canada's professional civil service and those individuals we have entrusted to administer justice. That is unlike the Conservative Party, which demonstrated yesterday and again today that it does not respect the independence of our court system. We do, and that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a good number of concerns with the bill. The first is, whatever happened to Bill C-56? It was tabled. Now the Liberals have introduced another bill. Their original bill, tabled more than a year ago, would actually limit administrative segregation to 21 days, and then within 18 months would further limit it to 15 days. This bill imposes nothing definitive. It says an inmate's confinement in an SIU is to end “as soon as possible”.

Eighteen hundred Canadian inmates are being segregated, and almost 50% of them are suffering from mental health issues. I refer the hon. member to the case of Eddie Snowshoe, an indigenous man from Northwest Territories who committed suicide after being in segregation for 162 days in a 2.5-metre by 3.6-metre cell. Eddie Snowshoe was in a desperate situation. People had even forgotten he was in there.

What is this bill going to do to stop more tragic Eddie Snowshoe cases?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the way the legislation is worded, we can see that Eddie Snowshoe would have received mental health services, along with other programming. This is the reality of the NDP's position. There is absolutely no doubt, philosophically, that this advances us forward. It might not go as far forward as the NDP would like to see it, but it brings us forward.

One would think the NDP would support that. I do not understand the positioning of the NDP on this. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we look at the example the member just gave, Eddie would actually have benefited by this.

In addition, the legislation would add the guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for CSC to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, is the member aware of any evidence or data that shows that the safety of the public is improved by administrative segregation in prisons?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at segregation as a whole, we have seen from other jurisdictions that we can improve the whole concept of rehabilitation in many different ways. Segregation would now be converted into something new, where there would be an allowance for rehabilitation programs and mental health services.

As I pointed out, most individuals who are incarcerated today are going to be living in our communities, hopefully as productive members of the public. The better programming we can provide, the greater the likelihood of the public being safer once they are released into communities, whether it is of a physical or a property nature.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us is the result of two decisions rendered by the B.C. Supreme Court and an Ontario court, which ruled that the existing measures are unconstitutional for two reasons.

First, there is no independent oversight agency to determine whether administrative segregation is justified. Second, there is no fixed maximum duration for administrative segregation. However, the bill that the government has presented us with today does not provide for independent oversight, nor for a fixed maximum duration for administrative segregation, so this bill does not change anything.

The only difference seems to semantic. Under the Conservatives, an inmate's confinement in administrative segregation was supposed to come to an end “at the earliest appropriate time”, whereas under the Liberals, it should end “as soon as possible”. Perhaps my colleague can clarify the difference for me.

What is the difference between “at the earliest appropriate time” and “as soon as possible”?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member across the way does not understand the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals on this issue, I would advise that he read my comments. I have been speaking on it for the last 20 minutes.

When we take a look at what this legislation would actually be doing, I do not understand how the NDP could possibly not support the legislation. I can understand why the Conservatives do not support it, but I do not understand why the NDP does not. Between now and the time it comes to vote, NDP members might want to caucus the issue. Hopefully they will realize it would be a mistake to be on the wrong side of it. They can bring forward their ideas and suggestions at the committee stage, and let us see if we can have some positive dialogue.

This government has consistently proven in the past that it is open to good ideas and ways to improve legislation. We have accepted amendments by opposition members in the past. We are always open to good ideas that have really been thought through and brought forward. I would encourage my colleague to reflect on his positioning on this legislation and ultimately get behind it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who will speak very eloquently on Bill C-83.

This is not how I meant to begin my speech, but since the parliamentary secretary has opened the door by saying he is open to suggestions, I have a very liberal idea to suggest. It is from a Liberal bill, Bill C-56, introduced by his own government, which would solve a lot more problems than Bill C-83 that is before us today.

This did not come from a small group of far-left extremists, but from his own government. Bill C-56 is full of good ideas, much better ideas than we see in Bill C-83, unfortunately. I suggest that he read his own bill, which is still in limbo somewhere in the House of Commons.

I, too, frequently met with correctional officers' unions back when I was still the NDP's labour critic. I share some of their concerns regarding their workload, as well as their health and safety at work. As I recall, they were particularly critical of the positions taken by the Conservative Party at the time, especially with regard to overcrowded prisons and the security problems associated with shared cells. I want them to know that we continue to support their demands for good working conditions.

I have also had the opportunity to visit a number of penitentiaries over the past two years at the invitation of a prisoners' rights advocacy group. Two years ago, I visited the Federal Training Centre in Laval, a medium-security penitentiary. More recently, I visited the Leclerc penitentiary, which is also in Laval, not far away. I also had the opportunity to meet inmates who moved from the Federal Training Centre in Laval to the Leclerc prison in the space of a year. They had made progress and were nearly eligible for parole.

Since we are talking about the prison system, it is important to demystify a few things and explain how it really works.

First, a medium-security prison is not an easy place to visit. Deprivation of liberty is an extremely serious thing. Ordinary citizens can hardly imagine being imprisoned in a cell. A lot of people think being in prison is easy, but the simple fact of spending months or years inside takes a toll. It truly is a punishment. In a moment, I will talk about the use of solitary confinement as a way to manage certain situations with prisoners. This kind of punishment can, in some cases, be considered cruel and abusive.

I have visited penitentiaries over the past two years and spoken with prisoners. They are extremely interested in politics, and I noticed that the environment is their top concern. They would ask me questions about the St. Lawrence, climate change, the future of beluga whales, and things like that. These people were going through a rehabilitation process and serving their time, and it was fascinating to see that they were keeping in touch with the rest of society. They asked all kinds of very relevant questions.

Recently, I also met with men from halfway houses run by the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. These former inmates support men who have gone through the parole process and are participating in a program with services and therapies so they can rejoin civil society and our communities. These people do extraordinary work and do not accept just anyone. To be honest, 20% of the people in these halfway houses went back to prison because they were unable to stick to their program. They do not accept just anybody. Participants must be disciplined and follow the rules. They must explain their absences and always report their whereabouts.

Parolees who are in halfway house programs and return to the community have a 1% rate of recidivism. That is fascinating. That means that 99% of them will never end up in court or prison again, because the process worked.

I think that it is important for people to understand that when done properly and thoroughly, the process works. Often the most dangerous thing is when people serve their sentence in full. They have spent 25 years in prison. They have not taken part in any programs, been granted parole or received therapy. When they are released, it is true that they can represent a danger to society.

Those who are not dangerous are not the ones who have served their full sentence. It is the ones who are released early because they made an effort and are ready to resume their place in the workforce, among their family and friends.

I think the bill before us is Orwellian. In essence, two superior court rulings, from Ontario and British Columbia, ruled that the current legislation, which provides for administrative segregation in certain situations, was unconstitutional. There are two problems. First, there is no third-party independent observer to determine whether the use of administrative segregation was justified and whether prolonging it was also justified. That is the first problem.

Second, the average duration of administrative segregation is 24 days. That is a long time, and it takes a toll on inmates and their mental health.

Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today does nothing to address the concerns raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice or the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I think it is worth pointing out that one of those two courts stated clearly that prolonged segregation can be considered cruel punishment if it is used abusively. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that administrative segregation lasting longer than two days can have negative and sometimes permanent effects on mental health.

People can suffer permanent mental health effects if they are in administrative segregation for more than two days. The current average is 24 days. According to the United Nations, administrative segregation lasting longer than 15 days may be considered torture. The average is 24 days. Does the Liberal government's bill cap the number of days? No. There is no limit.

The first clause of the bill is absolutely fascinating. It proudly states that administrative segregation will be eliminated. The government is going to listen to the Ontario court and the B.C. court and put an end to this practice.

In the second clause, we see that it is now called a structured intervention unit. That is exactly the same thing. They changed the term “administrative segregation” to “structured intervention unit”, which is still segregation, which still has the same effect on the inmate, which is still a form of punishment that can be abusive and cruel and can exacerbate mental health problems, and which, beyond 15 days, can be seen by the United Nations as a form of torture. Structured intervention units can be any area designated as such by the Correctional Service of Canada.

The structured intervention unit can be the entire penitentiary, an area in the penitentiary, or certain cells designated as such. I suspect that the administrative segregation cells will now be called structured intervention units. They are exactly the same areas. The Liberal government is absolutely not satisfying the courts' demands. There is also no independent body to verify whether any of this is being done in compliance with the standards and rules. There is no difference in the planned or possible duration of this segregation for these inmates.

The only difference is that we are going from a maximum of 22 or 23 hours a day to a maximum of 20 hours. That is all. That does not change the inmate's reality very much. Again, it should be noted that a consequence of this is that the release time could be 3 a.m., and the inmate might be asked to go outside when it is -25 degrees Celsius out. In fact, this often does not even exist.

I hope that the Liberal government will listen to reason this time.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear that my colleague was asked questions about the environment when he visited the prisons. The inmates are interested in what is happening in society, and that is good news.

My colleague pointed out parts of the bill that he feels are inadequate. For example, he said that the bill should establish the number of days of administrative segregation. The bill is now at second reading. My colleague knows very well that if we vote for the bill, it will be referred to a committee, and he will have the opportunity to propose these changes.

Will my colleague vote in favour of the bill as it stands, knowing that he will have the opportunity to propose changes in committee? If not, why?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have informed my colleague about the concerns of certain inmates, in particular about environmental causes.

At this stage, it is extremely difficult for the NDP to vote for this bill because it does not remotely respond to the demands of the Ontario or B.C. courts, nor does it reflect what the Liberals had proposed in Bill C-56.

I hope my colleague will be open to significant amendments that will fix the bill when it is studied in committee, because a majority government could refer it to a committee. In our opinion, the bill does not fix any problems at all. It is the same old, same old.

Today, 50% of those placed in administrative segregation have mental health issues. That is very worrisome. In Canada, between 2011 and 2014, 14 inmates committed suicide after being placed in administrative segregation. I believe it is time that we changed our practices with respect to this measure.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I understand that he does not completely agree with the bill. The Conservatives feel the same way but for different reasons.

My colleague keeps repeating that the structured intervention units proposed by the Liberals are just administrative segregation cells by another name. However, in their testimony, prison guards said that the Liberals' proposal could endanger the lives of guards and other inmates. My colleague keeps saying that neither solution is sufficient and that something else needs to be done.

What does he propose?

One one hand, we have the government, which is improvising solutions. On the other, we have a party that is saying that the government's solutions are no good but that is not proposing anything else.