Bill C-83 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 16, 2018
- Debated in principleOct. 23, 2018
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 18, 2019
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 2019
- Became lawJune 20, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 16 October 2018, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-83 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) provi…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,184 words introduced, 9,154 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core aim of ending segregation and creating structured intervention units but added a new layer of independent external decision-makers to review placements and conditions. Several procedural details on transfers, health visits and Indigenous considerations were also revised or expanded during passage.
- Added independent external decision-makers with appointment rules, powers and review duties over SIU placements.
After: “37.6 (1) The Minister shall appoint one or more persons to be independent external decision-makers.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes objective anchors such as fixed appointment terms, ten-day return deadlines and defined terms with repeated reliance on officials' beliefs on reasonable grounds and broad discretion to withhold information or impose restrictions. This leaves many coverage questions open to argument rather than settled by the text alone.
Open to argument
“has reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of public interest”
Subjective belief test tied to an undefined public-interest standard invites prolonged disputes over what qualifies.“may make any recommendation to the Service that he or she considers appropriate to remedy the situation”
Open-ended 'appropriate' language grants wide discretion without measurable limits.“in the prescribed circumstances, which circumstances may include, among other things, natural disasters, fires, riots”
Core rules deferred to future regulations with only illustrative examples.
Clear-cut
“An independent external decision-maker is to be appointed for a renewable term of not more than five years”
Numeric term limit and renewal rule create a clear black-and-white eligibility window.“Within 10 days after the day on which an independent external decision-maker makes a determination, the decision-maker shall return”
Fixed calendar deadline removes interpretive flexibility.“mental health assessment means an assessment of the mental health of a person conducted by a medical professional with recognized specialty training in mental health diagnosis and treatment, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist or psychiatric nurse”
Enumerated professional categories and training requirement supply an objective test.
Discretion. Extensive power remains with institutional heads, independent decision-makers and the Minister to decide what constitutes reasonable grounds, appropriate remedies or prescribed security needs, plus regulation-making authority for body-scan and dry-cell rules.
Challenging the law itself. Vague belief standards and information-withholding clauses could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth affecting liberty and security of the person.
Disputing a charge under it. An inmate or staff member facing a transfer or search decision could readily dispute whether the official's 'reasonable grounds' or 'appropriate' judgment was actually met, given the subjective wording.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
not effective
Multiple official reviews and audits, including from the Minister-appointed SIU Implementation Advisory Panel and CSC's own Joint Audit and Evaluation, conclude that Bill C-83 has not achieved its core objectives of eliminating isolating conditions equivalent to solitary confinement through SIUs. Persistent non-compliance with legislative requirements, continued use of segregation-like practices, and failure to meet intended outcomes are documented across reports spanning 2022-2025.
- Structured Intervention Unit Implementation Advisory Panel 2023 to 2024 Annual ReportreviewThe operation of the Structured Intervention Units is not sufficiently consistent with the goals of the Bill C-83 legislative amendments; the SIU regime is not working as intended with no meaningful improvements over four years.
- Correctional Service of Canada Joint Audit and Evaluation of Structured Intervention Units, June 8, 2025auditConcerns were noted regarding data accuracy and evidence to support compliance with relevant legislation and policies related to SIUs.
- Structured Intervention Unit Implementation Advisory Panel 2022 to 2023 Annual ReportreviewThe intent of the government when Bill C-83 changes were introduced has not been realized and the promises made to end isolating conditions of confinement have not been kept.
- Senators Go to Jail report (Senate Human Rights Committee visits)reviewSince the passage of Bill C-83, CSC practices often fail to comply with the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, with violations of Charter rights in SIU and other confinement practices.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.