Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 16-30 of 33
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Public Safety committee  Thank you. Again, I'm speaking in hypotheticals somewhat here, because I don't have in front of me what it would actually look like. I do understand the principle, which is that all complaints that would be brought forward would be heard, related to the plan. I'm sorry that I'm speaking ambiguously about a plan; it's because I'm not sure what the plan would look like.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  It's because, quite frankly, from the warden's perspective, I'm the first-level grievance. So for my office, it does save considerable time, because I'm not reviewing the first-level grievance procedures from there on out. The plan would be a key part of it in terms of how we would limit the moving on of this process, or what the inmate may have to demonstrate in terms of there being warrant and merit to what they're bringing forward.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  Yes, it's—

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  I have not used that process. I've been part of a management team that has used that process in terms of multiple-griever status. For me, it relates to, yes, we can limit them to, I think, two a month. It's a quantitative measure. It's statistical in nature. It actually doesn't speak to the nature of the grievance or the complaint; it just speaks to the number of grievances and complaints that are being put forward.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  I'm actually quite fine with the six-month timeframe. I think it's another check and balance for us as well. It allows us to see whether what we have tried to put in place with these individuals has had any kind of impact, and whether it has worked. It allows us to keep track so they don't become lost, so it's another check and balance that way.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  Yes, I think we'd definitely have to operationalize at the institutional level. And I'm sorry I keep saying operationalize, but I mean in no uncertain terms, through a commissioner's directive, we would have to know the plan and the parameters around the plan. We use the plan a lot in our system, whether it be the correctional plan or something like that.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  Thank you for recognizing that. I am proud of my staff. I'm very partial to the public service values they demonstrate daily. I guess that would be my first response. As the warden, I like to believe we follow the public service values in essence, in principle, and in practice.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  I have, on very limited occasions. What I'll say is that there's a lot of work that goes into naming somebody as a vexatious or frivolous complainant. I have to, one, basically answer the complaint or the grievance, and then, two, justify why it is that I am identifying this as a frivolous or vexatious complaint and submit it.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  That's correct.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  Thank you. No. Quite frankly, two of them are very litigious individuals. They are not lower functioning; they are of average functioning, and I would argue that one is probably mildly above-average functioning. They are not representing anybody else. They really use this as a means to draw attention to or to focus on certain staff members—to call to attention that they may have had issues with them on the range, whether it is putting down a rule or making sure that policies and routines are followed.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  I think it would for the majority of offenders. But we're speaking of a small percentage of offenders. For those individuals whose responses have been subject to time delays, hearing something of this nature would be positively interpreted. They would know that the onus would be on the institution to demonstrate that we are becoming more timely in responding.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  I can't speak exclusively to the process because I don't have an operational process yet. I don't have something from a commissioner's directive to direct me to what the process would look like. I certainly have looked at it from the same proposal as you. It would allow us the means to separate these inmates from the other inmates who are submitting genuine complaints and try to work with them, at least.

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

Public Safety committee  I feel that it would reduce the strain on the process. As for reducing their ability to submit vexatious or frivolous complaints, I think it would be a tool for doing that. How would we operationalize it in the bill? What lies at the root of the problem, other than a need to clog the system?

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke

April 3rd, 2012Committee meeting

Jay Pyke