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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Where do I even start with this? To sit here during a filibuster from the Conservatives using Paul Bernardo and the horrific crimes and the situation that these families have been put through, to suggest that anyone needs to relive that.... Try being a woman in this country. I don't care what your age is. Try being a woman learning about those stories and hearing those stories. To come back here as a filibuster against going through legislation is truly horrific.

If this is really about.... I will try to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that I would be embarrassed for my colleagues opposite—and I'm going to say this so that you think when you come back to this committee—to take a subject like victims' rights on horrific crimes and read a canned speech that has been used on radio ads and campaign whistle stops by your leader. To use canned campaign speeches on a topic like this is truly terrible.

I am going to try to take the benefit of the doubt that my honourable colleagues across the way do not understand the magnitude of hurt that making this situation political brings to women all across this country, but make no mistake: If you're truly serious about this not being partisan, you will support this amendment in its entirety. If you're truly serious about rights of victims and understanding security reclassification, then you will support the amendment to have officials come here and explain the situation. If this is partisan, you're going to behave differently, and Canadians will be watching. Victims will be watching and women will be watching, because women across this country will not tolerate using crime against women as a partisan manoeuvre. We have proposed a very meaningful amendment to come here and hear from Public Safety and Justice officials about how this actually happened.

I want to correct the record, Mr. Chair, on a couple of things.

First, on Bill C‑83, which is the clause in question that the Conservatives continuously raise, guess what: The Conservatives supported it. In addition to that, Public Safety Canada officials have actually already confirmed about the transfer in question—but we'll do it again here in a meeting if needed—that the wording that under the law allowed it to happen existed under the Conservative government too.

If you want to talk about how to put victims' rights forward and take a victim forward-facing approach, I am all for it, but if we are going to revictimize Canadian women and women around the world who have had to suffer, then be prepared, because I am going to show that the Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites on this issue. If you want to have a legitimate conversation about how this happened, how we can improve victims' rights and how we can make women safer in this country, I am all for it and I will be an advocate at this table, but if you make this political....

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Through the chair, if some parties make this political, then we will expose the hypocrisy and the lows that some members will go to for what they perceive is partisan gain, and I promise you that it will be a miscalculation.

I'm proposing that we bring officials and talk about how transfers happen in this country, because they are independent; that we hear from the commissioner of Correctional Services Canada and from the Department of Justice; and that we have these conversations. Opposition members, and it's mainly Conservatives who have spoken so far, have a choice to make in this moment. Are you going to be partisan on such horrific acts—

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

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, we see a pattern of division and blame-shifting, even from the deepest backbenches of the Liberal government, rather than taking responsibility and rectifying the problems that they themselves have created.

The majority Liberal government paved the way for the transfer of Mr. Bernardo by passing Bill C‑83 back in the day, which was supported only by the Liberals and disgraced Liberal Raj Grewal. This bill prioritized the “least restrictive environment” for prisoners, effectively reversing a policy established by the previous Conservative government that imposed a tougher standard on dangerous offenders. This reversal was cited by Correctional Service Canada to justify Bernardo's transfer.

Now, months after this shocking transfer, the government continues to let down the families of victims and the communities forever scarred by Bernardo's crimes. Despite our new public safety minister, we are witnessing the same kind of refusal to use legal authority to direct Correctional Service Canada to ensure that every mass murderer serves their time in a maximum-security facility.

With a level of ineffectiveness that ministers can deem appropriate, the former minister of public safety issued a directive to Correctional Service Canada. Unfortunately, he missed the point. He missed it entirely. The directive covered only the way victims are notified about transfers and their classifications, not a reversal, which is what should have been done with this transfer.

Conservatives will not stand idly by and let this injustice persist. That is why we've introduced the legislation that has been mentioned, which mandates that multiple murderers and dangerous offenders like Bernardo serve their entire sentences behind the walls of a maximum-security prison. We will bring justice and safety back to our communities.

On the issue of public safety, we have seen a government that has admitted its failure to protect Canadians from foreign interference, and we witnessed the replacement of, arguably, an unfit public safety minister with a new one, who seems to follow the orders of his predecessor. Yet, Mr. Bernardo remains in minimum security, outside of where he should be, and violent crime continues to rise in our streets.

To those Canadians who are watching today, Conservatives know that this situation is unacceptable, and we have the desire to do something about it. Victims' rights should never come second to those of dangerous and violent offenders. We must take a stand and rectify the mistakes of the Liberal government. Mr. Bernardo's transfer should never have occurred and it should not stand. He belongs in a maximum-security prison for the rest of his life.

To prevent further transfers like this and to ensure that victims' rights are upheld, Conservatives have introduced Mr. Baldinelli's private member's bill, Bill C-342. This legislation would permanently assign a maximum-security classification to multiple murderers and court-ordered dangerous offenders. It will repeal the Liberals' “least restrictive environment” standard and restore the language of “necessary restrictions” that the previous Conservative government had in place.

Mr. Chair, it's about time.

We call on the minister to issue a directive today and reverse the transfer of Mr. Bernardo. We will continue to champion the rights of victims, and a common-sense Conservative government will bring about safer streets and prioritize victims' rights by reversing this flawed legislation. We will ensure that people like Paul Bernardo remain where they belong.

My colleagues and I have a commitment to justice, public safety and the rights of victims. We will fight to ensure that our communities are safe, that justice is served and that the voices of victims and their families are heard.

If colleagues across the way are not able to ensure this, or Liberal ministers aren't able to ensure this, it will become the work of this committee to do that. It's not simply passing on a responsibility. The duty lies with us, and I ask you to consider the magnitude of our responsibility today and do what's right. Let's reverse this transfer and ensure that it never happens again.

Thank you.

Public Safety

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a common theme among Liberal responses. After eight years of the Liberals being in government, they say it is not their job. That is what the member opposite is saying here. The reality is the buck stops with the government. It and Parliament write the directives and rules under which these decisions are made.

Now, five years since Terri-Lynne McClintic, the families of Paul Bernardo's victims have been revictimized because the government put forward legislation to put mass murderers in the least restrictive environment and refused to issue a directive to ensure that mass murderers stay in maximum-security prisons.

I will ask again. Does the member opposite agree, can she just say she agrees, that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons, and that the provisions around a least restrictive environment the Liberals put forward and voted on in Bill C-83, as they apply to mass murderers and child killers, be repealed?