Skip to main content

Canada Lawyers tell Ottawa solitary confinement bill is unconstitutional

A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, seen here on June 6, 2019, said the U.N. rules don’t apply to C-83 because prisoner segregation practices under the proposed legislation would no longer fit within the international body’s definition of solitary confinement.

Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press

A group of nearly 100 lawyers and law professors is warning the federal government that a landmark solitary-confinement bill working through the Senate is unconstitutional in its current form.

In a letter sent to senators on Thursday, many of the country’s top prison-law scholars contend that Bill C-83 creates “solitary confinement under a different name” rather than achieving the government’s intent of abolishing the practice.

“It’s upsetting to see the government try to pass a law they know would be unconstitutional,” said one of the authors, Adelina Iftene, an assistant professor of law at Dalhousie University who specializes in prison law.

Story continues below advertisement

When the government announced C-83 in October of last year, it declared the bill would end the long-standing practice of administrative segregation, which had become the subject of two long-running lawsuits and years of denunciation from lawyers, judges, civil-rights advocates and prisoners. Those groups said the practice could cause irreparable mental-health problems among prisoners and amounted to torture under international law.

C-83 proposes to quash administrative segregation and replace the practice with the use of “structured intervention units” where prisoners would get at least four hours free from their cells, double their current entitlement, including two hours of “meaningful human interaction.”

In late 2017 and early 2018, courts in Ontario and British Columbia concurred that aspects of the law governing administrative segregation – roughly analogous to solitary confinement – violated sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gave Ottawa one year to implement fixes. Subsequent extensions have bumped that deadline to June 17.

The letter states that C-83 fails to address two major holes in current legislation identified by the two courts: the lack of binding independent oversight and the absence of limits on the amount of time prisoners can spend in isolation. In March, Ontario’s appeal court ruled that placing inmates in solitary confinement for more than 15 days constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, echoing the United Nations’ Mandela rules on the use of solitary confinement.

“With respect, we submit that passing a bill while knowing full well that it is unconstitutional is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money, but it also raises questions regarding Canada’s commitment to the rule of law,” the letter states.

At committee, parliamentarians added clauses to the bill that would create “independent external decision-makers," responsible for reviewing cases where prisoners don’t receive their required human contact or time outside of cells. In certain circumstances, these decision-makers would have the power to decide whether an inmate should remain in the structured intervention units.

A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the U.N. rules don’t apply to C-83 because prisoner segregation practices under the proposed legislation would no longer fit within the international body’s definition of solitary confinement.

Story continues below advertisement

“To fit [the U.N.'s] definition, the person must be both confined and denied meaningful human contact for 22 hours,” said Scott Bardsley in an e-mail. “Under C-83, prisoners will be confined for a maximum of 20 hours a day.”

The letter says that several amendments recently approved by a Senate committee could save C-83. The amendments would require Correctional Service Canada to apply to a superior court any time it wanted to detain a prisoner in excess of 48 hours.

Mr. Goodale has said that judicial oversight of segregation decisions would create “considerable and unnecessary burden on the court system.”

But Senator Kim Pate, a long-time advocate for the incarcerated, said the burden would be minuscule compared with the number of bail reviews, search warrant applications and other oversight matters currently before the courts.

“It’s a bit of a red herring to say this would be unduly burdensome on the Correctional Service of Canada or the courts,” she said. “Nothing less than judicial oversight is likely to change the culture within corrections.”

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter