“ORDINARY CANADIANS ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE LAW.  BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO EXPECTATION THAT PARLIAMENT SHOULD DO THE SAME – ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS POLITICALLY INCONVENIENT.”

This is the closing judgement to an op-ed published in Toronto’s Globe and Mail on September 3, 2024, a contribution from Anthony Doob, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, Jane Sprott, a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, and Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada.

The essay titled, “We need an inconvenient review of our solitary confinement legislation,” underscored that people charged with a crime must show up for court even if it is inconvenient.  Failure to appear can bring a charge with a new criminal offence.  Apparently, statistics show that 45 per cent of accused found guilty of failure to appear in court in Canada go to prison.   This seems not to be the case for Parliament.

Bill C-83 came into force on November 30, 2019, creating a new form of solitary confinement in federal prisons.  The government lost two major Court of Appeal cases in Ontario and British Columbia which ruled that what our federal prisons (Correctional Service of Canada) called “administrative segregation” violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  By introducing the new law in 2019, the government circumvented appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it would have almost certainly lost.

Legal experts who appeared before Parliament questioned whether the proposed reforms would satisfy the Charter rights that were violated under the old law.  To meet that challenge, a “rigorous review requirement” was added to C-83.

Section 40.1 (1)          At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted by this Act must be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, or the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.
Section 40.1 (2)          The committee referred to in subsection (1) must, within one year after the review is undertaken under that subsection, submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement of setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.

Note that in each subsection, the word MUST appears, not MAY or IF AND WHEN WE FEEL LIKE IT.

Dr. Doob and Dr. Sprott were members of an independent panel reviewing the use of solitary confinement for federal inmates.  Ten “empirically dense reports” were written and publicly released on the practice, and each took pains to underscore that Parliament’s plan for change wasn’t working.  The data in these 10 reports on the new regimen showed that there are problems with Bill C-83; it is not being administered properly, and the intent of the law has not been met.  Many prisoners are treated in violation of court prohibitions, and Indigenous and Black prisoners and prisoners with mental-health issues are at especial risk of inferior treatment in restrictive confinement settings.

The problems the panel observed in its appraisals are taxing it wrote, but that’s why the 2019 legislators anticipated potential downsides and required the later review.  Their purpose was clearly to consider the first few years as a trial period.

So, C-83 came into force on November 30, 2019.  The fifth year began on November 30, 2023, and that comprehensive review was to begin the day later.  The report to Parliament was to be submitted to Parliament within a year after that.

Where is it?  We submitted an Access to Information & Privacy (ATIP) request on May 11 of this year to Public Safety Canada.  We asked for a copy of that report.  A timely response came on June 13.  “Please be advised that, after a thorough search, no information related to your request exists within Public Safety Canada.”

July 29, 2025

The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree,
Minister of Public Safety,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Bill C-83 violation

Dear Minister Anandasangaree:

Please review Bill C-83 Section 40.1 (1) & (2).

I submitted an Access to Information and Privacy request on May 11 of this year asking for a copy of the report.  A response dated June 13 tells me that, “after a thorough search, no information related to your request exists within Public Safety Canada.”

Sir, you are in violation of an Act of Parliament.  If I or anyone in Canada was in the same position, we would be charged with a criminal offence.

First, Public Safety knows this Bill needs tweaks, along with an enforceable pathway to implementing its provisions, too.  Why is the government shirking its responsibilities?

Second, is impunity a perk of elective office?

Please do your job.  I’d like to read the review of C-83.

A response?  What might show up is an elaborate blunt to any hint of a breach and a defence of the ministry’s compliance with the Act.

What does Parliament fear?
What is under that rock?