Corrections and Conditional Release Act

Moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to move the adoption of the report on Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

At the outset, I would first like to extend my sincere thanks to Senator Kim Pate for her tireless and principled work in bringing this legislation forward. Senator Pate has long been a thoughtful, persistent advocate for human rights, dignity and the well-being of those who are in our correctional system.

This bill, in many ways, is the culmination of years of work to address deeply troubling realities within federal corrections, particularly the use of isolation-like conditions, the treatment of individuals with mental health needs and the lack of meaningful oversight and remedies.

In that context, we cannot proceed without acknowledging the lived experience that helped these issues come to the forefront.

I wish to recognize Tona Mills, a survivor of more than 10 years in solitary confinement and of the lifelong adverse health consequences of isolation. Her story was a catalyst for Senator Pate’s work, and, in turn, it helped illuminate the very human consequences of gaps in our current system.

I also wish to express condolences to Ms. Mills’ family and her friends on her recent passing. Her story is a reminder that these are not abstract policy questions; they are matters of human dignity, health and life.

Honourable senators, the committee undertook a thorough and serious study of this bill over the course of eight meetings, including clause-by-clause consideration, approximately 12.5 hours of testimony, 34 witnesses and 18 written briefs. We heard a wide range of perspectives from legal experts, Indigenous leaders, community organizations, clinicians and advocates. The study began on November 5, 2025, and concluded with clause-by-clause consideration on March 12, 2026.

The central purpose of Bill S-205 is to strengthen the safeguards in our correctional system, particularly in relation to isolation-like conditions, mental health and accountability.

In the old language, we used to call this “solitary confinement.” It morphed into a term known as “special handling units,” the SHU, and then “structured intervention units.” The common denominators were isolation and segregation.

Witnesses consistently underscored that despite prior reforms, serious concerns remain. Many described structured intervention units as continuing in practice to replicate aspects of segregation. Others emphasized the profound and well-documented harms associated with isolation, especially for individuals with mental health challenges and for those already overrepresented in the system, including Indigenous and Black Canadians, women and persons with disabilities.

We also heard strong and compelling evidence about the importance of community-based, culturally grounded supports, particularly those led by Indigenous communities, as a pathway to both healing and public safety.

At the same time, witnesses raised practical and legal concerns. These included questions about the implementation capacity, access to timely assessments and care, the feasibility of court oversight within strict timelines and the risk that well-intentioned provisions might not function as intended in practice.

It is in that context that the committee considered amendments, and I would like to place on the record a summary of those amendments.

Section 29 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act currently authorizes the transfer of an inmate from a penitentiary to a hospital, including a mental health facility, under certain conditions. Three different provisions under Bill S-205 would have amended the act to provide and specify instances in which inmates must be transferred to a hospital, including a mental health facility.

In turn, those provisions were either amended or voted down. Specifically, clause 3 would have added a requirement to transfer an inmate to a hospital for a mental assessment if a qualified medical professional could not provide an assessment in the penitentiary within 30 days of an inmate arriving at the penitentiary. Clause 6(2) would have added the same requirement for the transfer of inmates held in structured intervention units where a mental health assessment is not available within 24 hours. These time frames for mental health assessments are currently included in the act, but Bill S-205 would have added a mandatory transfer to a mental health facility if these assessments were not delivered in the penitentiary within certain required time frames.

Clause 4 would have added the requirement that an inmate be transferred to a hospital, including a mental health facility, if a registered health care professional concluded that the inmate has a disabling mental health issue following an assessment.

These three provisions — clause 3, subclause 6(2) and clause 4 — were either amended or voted down to remove the requirement for a mandatory transfer of an inmate to a hospital, including a mental health facility. In my opinion, this reflects a careful and focused effort by committee members to improve the bill while maintaining its core intent.

On the one hand, the testimony we heard strongly supported the principle that individuals with serious mental health needs must receive appropriate care and that prolonged or inappropriate placement in isolation-like conditions can be harmful and, in some cases, contrary to fundamental human rights.

On the other hand, witnesses and briefs raised legitimate concerns about the operational realities of mandatory transfers, particularly the availability of hospital beds, jurisdictional complexities with provincial health systems and the risk that rigid statutory requirements could create unintended consequences or delays.

The amendments adopted by the committee respond to those concerns by refining the bill’s approach, ensuring that the objective of improved care remains while avoiding provisions that might not be workable in practice.

In reviewing the testimony across the meetings and by way of an explanatory background, a few themes emerge.

First, there is broad alignment on the need to reduce and strictly limit isolation-like conditions and to ensure that such placements are subject to meaningful oversight.

Second, there is strong support for improving access to mental health care and for recognizing the complex and often intersecting needs of incarcerated individuals.

Third, there is consistent emphasis on the importance of community-based supports, particularly those that are culturally grounded and led by Indigenous communities.

At the same time, there is not complete alignment on how best to achieve those goals. Some witnesses supported strong mandatory provisions to ensure access to care. Others cautioned that without sufficient capacity and coordination, such provisions could be difficult to implement and might not achieve their intended effect.

Similarly, while many supported expanding access to community-based supports for disadvantaged or minority populations, others expressed concern that such expansion must not dilute or undermine existing Indigenous-specific frameworks or create competition for limited resources. These are not contradictions so much as reflections of the complexity of the issues that were before the committee.

The written briefs submitted to the committee reinforced many of these elements. They highlighted the importance of grounding any reforms in human rights, dignity and evidence-based practice; emphasized the need for transparency and accountability, including through data and oversight; and underscored the importance of ensuring that supports are not rationed in ways that force marginalized groups to compete for access.

At the same time, the briefs reflected a diversity of views on how best to structure the bill’s provisions, particularly in relation to the mental health transfers and the scope of community-based supports.

Honourable senators, the amendments adopted by the committee strike a reasonable and thoughtful balance. They respond to the evidence that we heard, improve the clarity and workability of the act and preserve its core objectives, which are to strengthen protections, improve care and enhance accountability within our correctional system.

Before concluding, I would like to thank the many individuals who supported the work of the committee from the assigned committee staff: the law clerk André Clair; the analysts, Michaela Keenan-Pelletier and Dana Phillips; the administrative assistant, Natassia Ephrem; and the clerk, Vincent Labrosse.

I also wish to acknowledge the honourable senators who served on the committee and their hard work as they put together this bill to get it to the report stage: Senator Batters, the deputy chair; and committee members Senator Clement, Senator Dhillon, Senator Miville-Dechêne, Senator Oudar, Senator Pate, Senator Prosper, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Simons, Senator Tannas and Senator D. M. Wells. Their professionalism, expertise and dedication were essential to the thorough and thoughtful study of the bill.

Honourable senators, Bill S-205 engages fundamental questions about how we treat those in custody in this country. It asks us to consider how we ensure safety, not only for the public but also those who are within these institutions. It asks us to consider how we uphold human dignity, even in the most challenging circumstances, and to ensure that our systems are not only lawful but just, effective and humane.

The bill, as amended, reflects careful consideration of these questions. It represents a meaningful step forward that is grounded in evidence, informed by lived experience and improved through the careful work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

For these reasons, I present and commend this report to you. I ask that you adopt the sixth report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Bill S-205. Thank you.