Moved second reading of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as sponsor of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.

Essentially this bill replaces Canada’s current system of administrative segregation with a much more progressive system of structured intervention units.

I begin my remarks today emphasizing two points, the first regarding offenders being purposefully separated from others. This bill is a very progressive proposal compared to the status quo and stands to benefit all concerned.

The second point is that recent court decisions have ruled the current system of administrative segregation as being unconstitutional, requiring an overhaul or an acceptable alternative that meets specific requirements. Otherwise, administrative segregation, as we know it today, will be shut down without an immediate and acceptable solution, creating an environment that is highly problematic and precarious beyond my and your comprehension.

Honourable senators, I submit for your consideration that this bill is the breakthrough solution, and we must advance this bill through our system, giving it full consideration in the interests of all concerned.

Let’s make no mistake: Prisons can pose extraordinary threats and are therefore extraordinarily difficult environments to manage, considering they can turn dangerous at any given time. Prison authorities are responsible and accountable to keep everyone safe in these environments, balancing needs between safety and security.

Canadians unfamiliar with the term “administrative segregation” might think of it as solitary confinement. Basically, we are talking about situations where an inmate has been separated from the general population for reasons of safety.

The number of people in administrative segregation daily is approximately 350, which is less than half the number from five years ago. Almost all of them are men. In 2016-17, the median stay in segregation was 11 days.

Isolating offenders, or segregation, is a last resort when no other reasonable alternative is apparent, a last resort limited by constitutional laws and resultant policies.

Administrative segregation is the separation of an inmate when specific legal requirements are met and thought to be a reasonable alternative or measure and in some situations short of a disciplinary decision.

An offender may be placed in segregation because a problem or situation exists requiring a solution for protection of the offender. Such is often the case for a former police officer, sex offender or police informant.

An offender may be placed in administrative segregation to prevent association with other inmates, maintain security in the event an offender poses a risk to themselves or a risk to another offender or a member of the staff or the institution. They might also find themselves in administrative segregation because their presence in the general population could interfere with a criminal investigation or because of violent or disruptive behaviour.

Today, segregation for the offender results in confinement to a cell, limited to a maximum of two hours per day outside cells, without any meaningful contact or interaction with others and no benefit from any program or programming or health care unless necessary, all of which can arguably impede any rehabilitation and overstep constitutional rights.

Some of the conditions in segregation are extremely poor and must be improved to allow offenders access to programs and to spend more time outside of the cells.

This bill acknowledges that reasonable alternatives under the current legislation and resultant policies are extremely limited, and parliamentarians must therefore consider substantial changes through a progressive and solution-oriented lens.

Bill C-83 is that solution, moving to end the use of solitary confinement or administrative segregation by establishing structured intervention units, or SIUs, that will house offenders that cannot be safely managed in the general population. While in an SIU, the offender will be given access to rehabilitation, mental health care and other productive interventions and programs tailored to meet the unique needs of the offender.

Offenders in SIUs will be allowed outside of their cells for four hours each day, versus two hours under the current administrative segregation model. They will be allowed at least two hours each day to access meaningful human contact with an elder, counsellor, family member or a friend. In addition, they will be visited daily by a registered health care professional and have access to health care advocates.

The prison system will retain its powers to separate dangerous offenders from the general population, but those offenders will no longer be deprived of human contact or programs that can help them rehabilitate. With a focus on the unique needs of the offender, a shorter time to rehabilitate is expected.

Under the new model of SIUs, the overall goal is to minimize confinement in an SIU and mitigate, if not eliminate, the offender’s return to an SIU. The goal is to positively impact the rehabilitation of offenders and, through addressing their unique needs and prescribed rehabilitation, safely integrate them back into society that much sooner.

Upon first entering a structured intervention unit, a behavioural assessment of the offender is conducted to establish a baseline and identify their unique needs. With that baseline established, registered health care workers can measure rehabilitation progress.

The new model will hold convicted offenders to account while creating an environment that achieves the principles of rehabilitation and safe integration back into society and a reduction in the number of repeat offenders.

It has been identified that unless health care is provided independent of Correctional Service Canada, health care providers will not be able to practice without undue influence on their professional judgment in regards to the care and treatment of their patients.

Greater autonomy and independence for health care professionals working in prisons and allowing the patient advocates is built into this new model.

Colleagues, people of all classes, nations and countries tend to think about prisons only when they make the news, sometimes because of concerns that an offender is being treated too harshly, or perhaps not being punished enough.

As parliamentarians, we are all entitled to visit correctional institutions, and our colleagues on the Human Rights Committee have recently been availing themselves of that.

Most of us will not visit a correctional institution, even though we are considered lawmakers. Yet the structure of our corrections system — the physical structures, the programs and services it provides, and the legal framework that underpins it — is a critical part of our justice system. In their purpose, prisons restrict the liberty of those persons who have done damage to society through their criminal acts.

Though we may wish it otherwise, incarceration is sometimes necessary to manage the risk such persons may present, and it’s necessary to give offenders the controlled opportunity to change their course. In this context, specific supports for those inmates seeking to make positive decisions are essential.

As a matter of practical self-interest, we are all safer when the system successfully prepares people who have broken the law to return to our communities and be safely integrated back into society as productive, law-abiding fellow citizens.

As well, how well we accomplish this objective and the means we employ to do so reflects our society and its humanitarian values.

To quote Fyodor Dostoevsky, a Russian journalist and philosopher who reflected much on the issues of crime and punishment:

The degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons.

I have scheduled visits to the penitentiaries in Kingston and Prince Albert in the coming weeks to measure for myself the degree of civilization in our society. My cousin, retired now, after 42 years of being a veteran, and running programs in correctional institutions tells me to be prepared to be shocked by what I see.

It has been 30 years since the Correctional Service of Canada, also known as CSC, adopted a new mission statement, namely:

. . .contributes to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, and by exercising reasonable, safe . . . and humane control.

Since that time, there have been significant steps forward.

The old Penitentiary Act, in which prisoners’ rights were of little concern, was replaced by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act which required the use of least-restrictive measures, consistent with the institutional and public safety.

CSC has reached agreements with Indigenous community organizations to run their own correctional facilities for federal inmates.

People in federal custody acquired the right to vote.

New institutions for women have been designed so that inmates live in houses within fenced-in areas that include a courtyard rather than traditional cells.

Let me be clear, such progress has been neither simple nor straightforward. This is the case for the central issue, administrative segregation, which is being addressed in Bill C-83.

Bill C-83 addresses the matter of segregation head on. It also addresses several other important aspects of federal corrections and takes significant steps in a progressive direction.

This bill proposes changes ranging from parole hearings to health care to the interdiction of contraband.

Most observers agree that Correctional Service must be able to separate inmates from the general prison population, on occasion, for safety reasons.

During committee study in the other place, that point was made by the president of the John Howard Society, Catherine Latimer; the Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger; and former inmate, Lawrence DaSilva.

Recent court decisions in British Columbia and Ontario have reached similar conclusions. In the words of the B.C. Court of Appeal:

Administrative segregation or a more appropriate alternative regime must be in place to protect inmates who would be exposed to risk in the general population and to provide safety for persons who work in penitentiaries.

Bill C-83 provides this more appropriate alternative in the form of the new model, structured intervention units.

The new system will, among other advancements, comply with the United Nations Mandela Rules for the treatment of prisoners.

The current system of administrative segregation works like this: Inmates who need to be separated from the rest of the institution for safety reasons are moved from their cell in a regular part of the prison to a cell in the section reserved for segregation.

The physical conditions in a segregation cell are generally similar, if not identical, to those of regular cells. But currently segregated inmates spend a minimum of 22 hours a day in those cells. And time out of their cell is often spent alone elsewhere, like in the prison yard.

Safety concerns prevent them from accessing programs and rehabilitative interventions that would put them in rooms with other inmates.

This means that they are unable to receive necessary services while in segregation because providing them with these one-on-one services is not a possibility with the current resources available to CSC.

The new SIU system introduced with Bill C-83 will improve the current system in significant ways that will respond to safety concerns as well as inmate rights. SIUs will be designed to provide the individualized, one-on-one attention these inmates require. This legislation ensures they receive mental health services that address the factors that led to their separation so that they can return safely to the general population of the institution as soon as possible.

While in the SIU, they will be offered a minimum of four hours out of the cell every day, which is twice what is currently provided while they are in segregation. They will also get at least two hours daily of meaningful human contact in the form of interactions with staff, elders, chaplains, volunteers, visitors and other compatible inmates.

By providing four hours outside the cell each day, the SIU model would exceed the standards established by the United Nations, referred to as the Nelson Mandela Rules, which define solitary confinement as 22 hours or more of confinement a day without meaningful human contact.

For safety reasons, Bill C-83 does not propose a cap on the number of days an inmate can spend in an SIU. If there were to be, for example, a 15-day limit as suggested by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the question would be what to do with a person who still poses a danger on day 16. Forcing them back into general population before they’re ready could be dangerous not only for them but for other inmates and correctional staff.

Having said that, Bill C-83 essentially creates a continual presumption that an inmate will be moved out of the SIU. Proposed section 33 prescribes that:

An inmate’s confinement in a structured intervention unit is to end as soon as possible.

And the bill is clear that an inmate may only be in an SIU if there is no reasonable alternative. The moment that a reasonable alternative is identified or the inmate no longer poses a safety risk, Bill C-83 requires that they be moved out.

This question of a time limit is particularly relevant in light of a recent court decision in Ontario. That decision requires a 15-day cap replacement in administrative segregation in Ontario, effective April 12. The question therefore becomes whether such a cap must now be included in Bill C-83.

The answer to that question can also be found in the very first line of the court’s ruling, which states:

The distinguishing feature of solitary confinement is the elimination of meaningful social interaction or stimulus.

That is precisely the defect that the new system corrects. In other words, the court says inmates may not spend more than 15 days without meaningful social interaction. In the new SIU system, inmates won’t have to go even a single day without it.

To summarize, SIUs will provide twice as much time out of the cell than provided in administrative segregation, and two hours of legally mandated human contact, compared to zero. These are quantitative improvements.

There are also the qualitative improvements I mentioned, including specialized rehabilitative interventions and mental health services.

Accordingly, during committee study in the other place, the bulk of the criticism was not about the nature of SIUs, as I have just described them. Rather, witnesses generally questioned whether SIUs would truly function as envisioned.

Concerns mostly fit into three main categories: adequacy of resources, potential loopholes in the language of the bill and oversight. Each of these areas of concern has since been addressed, with opportunity for the Senate to further examine this legislation in committee.

With regard to adequate resources, Bill C-83 was tabled before the Fall Economic Statement was issued and the government had not yet announced a dollar figure to accompany the bill, so it is understandable that witnesses raised this as a concern.

Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society said that:

The success of the SIU vision presented to the committee by Minister Goodale is dependent upon the adequacy of the resources for infrastructure programs and appropriate personnel . . . .

The National President of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Jason Godin, said in reference to Bill C-83:

There are good intentions there . . . .

. . . but we’re asking how you are going to deliver that from an operational standpoint to safely manage the institution. Right now, the way the bill sits, it’s virtually impossible to do that without the proper resources.

And Stanley Stapleton, National President of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, which represents parole officers and program staff, said the bill contains:

. . . measures to make Canada’s federal prisons more humane and improve offenders’ chances of rehabilitation . . . . However . . . new resources are needed to ensure its successes.

The government has now confirmed that adequate resources will be in place. The Fall Economic Statement allocated $448 million over six years to implement the new system, with ongoing funding of $148 million per year. Most of the money will be used to hire approximately 950 new employees, including an estimated 650 who will provide health care, programs and targeted interventions. The remaining 300 will be security personnel to help ensure that all of the other staff are doing their rehabilitative work in a safe environment.

With regard to the second category of concerns about possible loopholes in the legislative language, the committee adopted a number of amendments to address them. For example, there were questions about whether the opportunity for time out of cell mandated by the bill would be offered at unreasonable hours, like in the middle of the night. So an amendment was adopted requiring time out of the cell to be provided between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

There were also questions about the human interactions mandated by the bill and if that would happen through doors or meal slots. So the committee adopted an amendment creating a presumption that interactions will be face-to-face, and if that is not the case, to provide documentation to explain why not.

Questions were similarly raised about the section of the bill that allows for time out of the cell to be denied in exceptional circumstances. To prevent it from being misused, the committee specified some of the truly exceptional circumstances that would justify denying time out of the cell, such as natural disasters or a power failure.

There were also questions about the section that allows health care professionals to recommend to the warden that an inmate be removed from the SIU or that their conditions be altered. Some witnesses thought there could be circumstances when such recommendations would not be taken seriously by the warden. Therefore, the committee added a requirement that any disagreement on this point between the health care professional and the warden be elevated to a senior CSC committee external to the institution.

In other words, to summarize, committee members listened to witness testimony about concerns and potential loopholes and responded by making thoughtful, concrete amendments to the bill.

Finally, the third main category of concern is related to oversight. There were calls for independent oversight of SIU placements from, among others, the John Howard Society, the Correctional Investigator, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

In particular, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association called for an external oversight body with decision-making power to ensure that the Correctional Service complies with its statutory obligations and that inmates get their mandated hours of human interaction and time out of the cell. Accordingly, the bill has since been amended to include independent external decision makers. The current law requires persons designated by the warden to review the case “at the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.” Bill C-83 instead creates a significantly more robust review process in providing for binding decisions by independent external decision makers, including the right of an appeal to the Federal Court by both the inmate and Correctional Service Canada, by virtue of section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

This external oversight will apply in three scenarios. First, the independent decision-maker will conduct a review if, for whatever reason, an inmate in an SIU doesn’t get their minimum hours of human contact or hours out of cell for five consecutive days or 15 days out of 30.

If a decision-maker concludes that CSC has not taken all reasonable steps to provide the mandated hours, they can make recommendations. After a week, if those recommendations aren’t being followed, they can order the inmate’s removal from the SIU.

Second, external oversight will also apply in the scenario I mentioned earlier involving a recommendation from a healthcare professional. If the warden disagrees with the recommendation and the senior CSC panel sides with the warden, the independent decision-maker will adjudicate.

Finally, the independent decision-maker will review every SIU placement at the 90-day mark and every 60 days thereafter. That is on top of regular internal reviews by the warden, which are conducted within five days, followed by another review every 30 days with the inmate’s participation and written reasons from the warden.

Independent decision-maker reviews are in addition to reviews by the Commissioner of the Correctional Service.

Another point made at the House committee was that there are significant distinctions between the realities of the current segregation system at men’s and women’s institutions. On a given day, across the entire federal corrections system, the number of men in segregation is usually between 300 and 400; for women, it’s between zero and three.

Women’s stays in segregation are usually far shorter. There is a real difference between segregation cells and ordinary living conditions at women’s prisons. In that regard, I am pleased to advise you that the Public Safety Minister confirmed a few weeks ago that Correctional Service Canada will be taking a gender-informed approach to the implementation of SIUs. I understand there have been consultations with organizations, including the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, and that discussions in greater detail will continue between officials of Correctional Service Canada and representatives of those groups.

In other words, honourable colleagues, the government and Correctional Service Canada have been open to amendments and responsive to feedback. This bill as initially drafted was already an improvement over the current state of affairs. Since its introduction, there have been numerous improvements and amendments to address stakeholder concerns. As well, considerable resources have been allocated to ensure successful implementation, and binding independent oversight has also been added.

For good measure, the minister has announced that he will appoint an advisory committee to monitor implementation and ensure that the new SIU system is functioning as planned. This committee will be comprised of people with a variety of relevant experience and expertise, including in the areas of mental health, rehabilitation and institutional safety. Its role will be to advise the Commissioner of CSC on an ongoing basis, as well as to bring matters of concern directly to the minister’s attention, as required.

Honourable senators, replacing segregation with SIUs is clearly a major step in a positive, progressive direction. With mandated hours out of cell and meaningful human interaction in SIUs, as well as the delivery of rehabilitative interventions and mental health care services, Bill C-83 will improve the lives of both federal inmates and staff. It will also promote offenders’ successful rehabilitation, make correctional institutions safer while these individuals remain incarcerated, and make all of us safer by better preparing them for successful release and safe integration back into society.

The last point I want to remind you of before discussing other elements of the bill is that Parliament’s study of Bill C-83 has been occurring in the context of several ongoing legal proceedings about the constitutionality of the current segregation regime, including constitutional challenges in B.C. and Ontario. In both of those cases, there have been rulings declaring the section of the law governing administrative segregation contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Initial declarations of constitutional invalidity have been suspended: until the end of April in Ontario and until mid-June in B.C. Also, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently set an April 12 date for the invalidity of segregation that lasts longer than 15 days.

As I mentioned at the outset, the courts themselves have said it would be dangerous to end segregation with no substitute system in place. In the words of the B.C. Court of Appeal this past January:

We agree that the security of penitentiaries would be at risk if the [existing law] were immediately struck down.

And the courts explicitly delayed the effect of the rulings to give Parliament time to enact Bill C-83. Again, to cite the B.C. Court of Appeal:

The Government has now introduced a bill in the House of Commons. There is no reason to doubt the government’s resolve or ability to have the legislation passed before Parliament rises for the summer break.

It is possible that at least some of these deadlines will be further extended. Sooner or later, however, rulings will take effect. If we don’t adopt this bill by that time, we will leave Correctional Service of Canada in a legal vacuum, unable to use segregation to deal with dangerous situations and without any safe, viable and acceptable alternative found within the context of the current legislation and policies.

Bill C-83 allows for the protection of the correctional staff and the people in their custody, while meeting the rehabilitative and mental health imperatives that segregation does not. Bill C-83 is therefore far better than the current system and obviously far better than no system at all.

Briefly, honourable senators, I will now address the other elements of Bill C-83, all of which fit within the same general objective of building a more progressive and effective correctional system.

The legislation enshrines in law the principle of the independence of health care providers within Correctional Service Canada, and it allows for patient advocates to ensure inmates and their families know and can exercise their rights with regard to medical care. This is something that was called for by the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, a young woman who died of self-inflicted strangulation while in custody several years ago. Having patient advocates will improve the quality of medical care for inmates who are not always able to advocate for themselves.

The bill allows all victims of crime access to recordings of parole hearings, as opposed to the current law, which only allows victims to access recordings if they were absent from the hearing. This is significant in that, as you can imagine, parole hearings are often stressful experiences for victims of crime, and if they understandably don’t remember everything that was said, there’s no reason the law should prevent them from listening to proceedings a second time in a less stressful state of mind.

Bill C-83 also allows for the use of body scanners as a search tool. These are like the technology used at airports and are already in place in several provincial correctional systems, providing an alternative to more invasive strip and body-cavity searches.

In keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1999 Gladue decision, Bill C-83 enshrines in law the requirement that the Correctional Service consider systemic and background factors when making decisions that affect Indigenous offenders. Considerations unique to Indigenous offenders are to be factored into all correctional decision making and programs unique to Indigenous offenders.

On a related note, I know there have been some concerns about changes the bill would make to the section of the current law related to the involvement of Indigenous communities in the correctional system. The fact is these changes are technical in nature and will not affect the way these provisions function in any practical way.

For example, section 81 of the current law allows the Minister of Public Safety to enter into an agreement with an Aboriginal community to provide correctional services. This is the provision that governs community-run healing lodges. Bill C-83 would change “aboriginal community” to “Indigenous governing body or any Indigenous organization.”

The new language simply makes more legal and practical sense, because it refers to identifiable legal personalities. Similarly, the bill modifies section 84 of the act, which allows for the release of Indigenous offenders into Indigenous communities. Currently, the law requires that CSC give the community notice of the offender’s pending release. Bill C-83 would change that to require that notice be given to the community’s “Indigenous governing body.” This change will simply reflect established practices that ensure “notice” is provided to community leadership.

Finally, honourable colleagues, committee members in the other place amended the bill to reinstate the principle of “least restrictive measures.” For 20 years, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act required that the correctional system impose on inmates the “least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders.”

In 2012, that language was changed to “measures that are consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders and that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate to attain the purposes of this Act.” By reverting to the previous language, Bill C-83 now reasserts the principle that federal custody is not about imposing hardship, but about protecting society and promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of people who have broken society’s laws.

Indeed, that is the principle that underpins this entire bill. I have no doubt that honourable senators will conduct a thorough examination of Bill C-83, scrutinizing the wording of particular clauses, asking solid questions and considering potential modifications towards improving the bill. But I urge us all to remain clear-eyed about the fact that this bill is a significant improvement over the current law governing our corrections system.

At the expense of being repetitive, I remind you of the recent court rulings and that we must provide CSC with an acceptable alternative as one of the tools to maintain that balance between safety and security for all concerned and safely integrate offenders back into society that much sooner.

Bill C-83 will make correctional institutions across Canada safer, it will ensure better rehabilitation and more humane conditions for those who must be separated from the general prison population for a measured period and it will help meet the overall objective of safer communities.

These reforms will protect the safety of correctional staff and those under their care while ensuring offenders receive more effective rehabilitative programming, interventions and mental health support.

I look forward to hearing your varied perspectives and to participating in constructive debate in the chamber and, importantly, during committee study. Your active participation is greatly appreciated as we work for the ultimate adoption and enactment of this legislation.

Will this bill be a progressive alternative to segregation and result in other benefits enshrined? It aims to do so, and I trust progress will be made, measured and reported.

My hope is that we get this bill to committee where it can be studied further, resulting in a Senate committee report coming back to the Senate swiftly and effectively for the Senate’s deliberation and further discussion. Thank you.

Senator Klyne, will you take a question?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you for your speech, Senator Klyne. Perhaps you would like to join our Human Rights Committee.

I’m pleased the government has recognized that segregation is inhumane. I’m a member of the Human Rights Committee and we did travel to prisons and, in fact, some of us were in the cell where Ashley Smith took her own life while prison guards were watching. It was an emotional time to be there. We also talked through the meal slots to prisoners who were in segregation and it was clear that many of them suffered from poor mental health, and I know you mentioned mental health in your speech.

During our study of the human rights of prisoners, we heard testimony indicating that in order to have human interaction — not through the meal slots but, rather, real interaction — that pursuant to Bill C-83, health professionals and program staff will be accompanied by two prison guards when they speak with the prisoners.

My concern is the potential breaches of confidentiality, that you have a health care professional talking about physical or mental health, that you have two prison guards accompanying the medical personnel. I’m wondering if, when the committee is meeting — and I’m not sure what committee it will be yet — whether or not you would suggest and encourage that the committee hear from medical personnel who go into the prisons and what can be done to ensure confidentiality, because these prisons are homes to the prisoners. They are there 24/7 and to have their medical files being spoken of before the prison guards would be intimidating, and you wonder whether or not the medical professionals are going to get the true picture. If they do get the true picture, the confidentiality aspect of that would be extremely important to a prisoner for whom, as I said earlier, this is their home.

Thank you for that question. I will say that I agree with you. That is something which should be of concern and I would certainly support that they do hear testimony from experts in that regard. I would think that there can be reasonable solutions found for this.

I am not a person that likes to work within extremes, but I understand there is a spectrum of the situation and I’m pretty sure through that the dialogue and hearing from witnesses, we can come up with a made-in-Canada solution on that.

Senator Klyne, will you take another question?

Sure.

I’d like to know if Bill C-83 contains any measures that will be offered to both female and male inmates, since that hasn’t been the case so far. Does the bill contain any specific provisions in that regard? That would be important, especially since we don’t have the gender-based analysis that was performed during the bill’s study.

Does the bill contain any measures to ensure that these elements are explored more thoroughly under a new system? You made it clear that this system is meant to improve the current system, but I think we need to not only improve it, but also consider the issue of respecting men’s and women’s rights within the correctional system.

Thank you for the question. My belief is that the gender analysis will continue. It’s an ongoing process. It’s an evolving process and the intent is to be on a continual improvement basis once it’s implemented. It’s clear that the situation between men and women are different, as are the requirements around them. Specifically I can’t point to something in the bill that would say that, but I would be pleased to look into that and get back to you.

Senator Klyne, would you accept another question?

Yes.

Thank you. If I may tell you the perspective from which I come in looking at this, when I was an elected politician, I ran in a riding where many years before, the predecessor was the Honourable Agnes MacPhail, a prison reformer renowned in Canada. I learned a lot about the prison system from a woman by the name of Ruth Morris who is internationally known abolitionist, a member of the Quakers and a Canadian Friend.

I also have another perspective. I was a jail guard and have worked in these situations and with inmates in general population, in protective custody in administrative segregation, in punitive segregation and mental health segregation. I recognize the complexity. I appreciate you taking on the sponsorship of this bill. I think you’ve presented a lot of issues and shown us there is good intent for reform. I worry about the issue that Senator Cordy raised, not just from confidentiality but from the ability for inmates to express the concerns of how they are being treated when the medical professional is not there and how it bears on their mental or physical health when it’s in front of correctional personnel.

My more fundamental question, given the court reviews and the reasons that gave rise to court reviews, could you tell me if you’ve looked at this and if you have an understanding you can share with us of how the provisions in this bill would have prevented Ashley Smith’s death? I don’t see it. This is being introduced into an institutional culture that exists and that is quite contrary to the commitments that the words seem to intend. How would this have prevented Ashley Smith’s death?

Senator Klyne, your time has expired. Are you asking for more time?

Please.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you for the question. I don’t know the report following that unfortunate death, but I believe the intent there is for health care advocates to be available, accessible and have an open process of dialogue with an inmate or their family so they can provide advocacy. Quite often I would think the inmate is unable to seek that or gain that advocacy from health care, so someone will be sought who can act on their behalf.

Maybe even in the absence of that — and I use the word “maybe” because I’m not certain — a health care advocate will do what they can to represent the issues and concerns of an inmate who is in a situation that is troubling, precarious and requiring some attention.

Thank you, senator, for that question. Currently under section 3 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the purpose and principles outline that the federal corrections system is meant to contribute to assisting the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders back into society. The principles to achieve these are found in section 4(g) of the CCRA, which currently lists many groups of Canadians, such as Indigenous Canadians, women and those facing mental illness, who require considerations when applying the CCRA, but there is no mention of minorities.

Bill C-83 adds specific language to this section to ensure that Correctional Service will now be responsive to the special needs faced by Canadians who are visible minorities, Indigenous and women, among others. Furthermore, the additional supports offered by SIUs are tailored to the individual needs, social organizations engaged and considerations surrounding the services they are provided.

With your engagement, senator, I look forward to clarifying any language within the legislation to further ensure it considers African Canadians and other minorities who are disproportionately represented in the correctional system. Thank you.

Senator Klyne, thank you for your very thorough overview of Bill C-83. As you know, and as you’ve referenced in a number of examples, this bill was studied in the other place. There was another recommendation that you didn’t mention that went along these lines.

Given the testimony that the committee heard from the Correctional Investigator and other stakeholders and the fact that there are only 10 women currently housed in administrative segregation units in all of Canada, the committee addressed the whole idea of a substitute system in this way:

The committee strongly encourages the Correctional Service of Canada to consider alternatives to segregation in women’s institutions, such as the pilot program proposed in 2016 by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

As a member of the Human Rights Committee, I too visited a number of prisons. I too stood in the cell where Ashley Smith died. I’m very appreciative of the question raised by Senator Lankin. In fact, as you know, the Human Rights Committee of the Senate has visited more than 25 prisons in this country, so you have a tremendous resource available to you.

The pilot program referred to by the committee in the other place proposed an end to segregation and isolation by any name, in any form, for women, relying instead on representatives of the Elizabeth Fry and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to be on call in situations where women would otherwise be segregated in order to assist in promptly finding an alternative solution.

Senator McPhedran, the senator’s time has expired. Could you ask your question quickly, please?

Thank you. Do you agree with the committee’s recommendation?

Sorry, Your Honour. If the senator’s time has expired, you would need leave from the Senate.

Senator Martin, I was going to let the senator finish asking her question quickly and then —

Senator Klyne, your time has expired. Are you asking for more time?

I would like to answer the question.

Senators, extra time has been declined. I’m sorry.