Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That's great.

I now want to come back to the controversial needle exchange program that will be offered to inmates at all penitentiaries and jails. As you know, the unions completely oppose the plan. I asked the minister about it. I understand the problem: drugs are getting into institutions.

If the introduction of drugs could be curbed as much as possible and at the source, and if drones could be stopped from delivering drugs, for example, to the institutions, would those needles still be needed? The officers feel they pose a real threat to their safety.

[Anne Kelly]

It's important to remember first and foremost that it's a sanitation program meant to reduce the incidence of infectious diseases.

In terms of drugs, yes, there is a drone problem, as you mentioned. Drones are dropping packages for prisoners. The practice is becoming increasingly sophisticated. A drone was recently found hidden in the grass, which is making it even harder to detect and recover drugs.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

The issue the officers are raising is the threat posed by putting needles into the hands of prisoners. They become weapons. You know how imaginative and creative inmates can be. What are your thoughts on that?

[Anne Kelly]

The danger posed by needles is evaluated based on a threat and risk assessment. It's important to remember that our penitentiaries already allow the use of EpiPens and insulin syringes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It's important not to generalize. At present, inmates have to submit a request to get that equipment.

[Anne Kelly]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

You have seven minutes, Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure in some cases who I should address my questions to, so I'll just ask them of everyone and leave it up to you to decide who should respond.

My first question has to do with indigenous peoples. I understand there is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of the bill. The English term has been changed from “aboriginal” to “indigenous”. In French, the term is still “autochtone” or “aboriginal”.

There is also another change. Clause 79 of the bill refers to a “council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”.

Will this provision limit the number of aboriginal communities that can be consulted or can sign agreements with the Correctional Service of Canada? Will you work with the appropriate federal department?

[Anne Kelly]

That provision will not prevent us from reaching agreements with aboriginal communities. The change applies more to something the minister explained, having to do with contracts. It would be a contract with what is referred to as an aboriginal governing body. That is the change.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay, perfect.

My next question has to do with the December deadline. The minister has referred to that date several times over the past few weeks to get us to speed up our study of the bill. I'll resist the urge to show my cynicism regarding that objective.

If the bill does not receive royal assent by the deadline, there will be a legal vacuum. If there is a legal vacuum until the bill passes, is there an interim plan to manage the situation?

[Anne Kelly]

Of course, we will be keeping a close eye on the court decisions. If the bill does not pass by that date, a contingency plan will be needed.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

If I understand correctly, you are hoping the bill passes on time, but it's possible that it won't. In such a scenario, has a contingency plan been developed?

[Angela Connidis, Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Yes, hello. I'll take that question.

We have sought an extension from the court to delay the implementation or the coming into force of the decisions. We're seeking an extension for that. Definitely, the priority for the contingency plans will be the safety and security of the staff, the inmates and the institution itself.

Getting into specifics right now isn't possible, but it is definitely the intention of Public Safety and the Correctional Service of Canada to work together to ensure that should the need arise, the contingency plan in place will protect the safety of the staff, the institution and the inmates.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

We were just talking about correctional officers' safety. I know this is a hypothetical situation and that, in politics, it can be difficult to speculate, but should that situation arise, would the union be asked to help develop the contingency plan for what happens going forward?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

The union would certainly participate, as is the case for all our policies.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay, thank you.

At the technical briefing, something that came up a few times was the resources needed for institutions to be able to adapt to everything in the bill, if it passes.

We heard that the spaces currently being used for segregation could be adapted. Would any physical changes need to be made to those spaces, or could they be used as they are? Commissioner Kelly, you could designate those spaces according to the criteria outlined in Bill C-83, could you not?

[Anne Kelly]

We will be able to use the existing spaces. However, we'll have to see how the staff responsible for the structured intervention units want to proceed.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I have a question about the translation. I don't know whether anyone here can speak to the details of the drafting of the bill.

In the English version, where it talks about releasing someone from the structured intervention unit, the expression “at the earliest appropriate time” replaces “as soon as possible”, while the French version keeps the wording “le plus tôt possible” or “as soon as possible”.

Is there a reason for the change in English? Is it for concordance purposes?

[Anne Kelly]

I'm not sure.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'll have to ask someone at the Department of Justice.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Maybe that's a more appropriate question to be raised at clause-by-clause.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't think it's appropriate that the witnesses venture an opinion at this point.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have a little more than a minute.