Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Motz, take five minutes, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

You indicated in your opening remarks that this legislation will in no way impact the safety of the staff in the prisons.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has expressed concern with this legislation, particularly with eliminating disciplinary segregation.

Allow me to quote their president, Mr. Godin, who said that the correctional officers need tools to ensure “that inmates displaying dangerous and violent behaviour have some consequences for their actions.” He says that since Correctional Services Canada has limited its use of segregation with new policies, there has been an increase in the number of assaults on inmates and staff.

With that reality, what in this bill will make sure that correctional officers will be safe at work?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The power to separate people when they need to be separated for the purposes of safety, whether that is safety of the institution, safety of the staff, safety of other inmates, safety of personnel who may be visiting the institution—that power to get people apart, if they need to be apart for safety reasons—remains.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

All right.

Minister, you had indicated also in your opening remarks that the SIUs will be redesigned. I'd like to know what renovations will be required to change the current units into what you're envisioning with this particular legislation. Help me understand the additional staffing requirements that you have identified there.

What's the cost? I look at this legislation and I see no reference to what it will actually cost to play this out. What types of costs are associated with the renovations required, the change in structure and the additional staff requirements to make this a reality?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The finances to allow the implementation of Bill C-83 will be forthcoming through the appropriate budget allocations and estimates.

I'd make the point that one doesn't wade into the detail of that until one actually has the legislative authority to do it. You've made that point yourself, so I take that point. When we have the legislative authority, we will then come forward with the budgetary allocations to implement this plan.

In terms of the physical structures, that will vary from institution to institution, but let me just ask Commissioner Kelly if she—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

We have her in the second hour, so I'll reserve those questions for her. Thank you, Minister.

Again, just about the cost, there have been indications that some of the institutions don't have the infrastructure required to get them up to standard to even meet the requirements for body scanners. I know you say you're going to implement the budget requirements for this and you'll announce that in due course, but in my estimation the cost is going to be substantial to bring them up to standard.

I have one more question for you, in regard to the term “meaningful human contact”. That is not defined in legislation. As in many other pieces of legislation that this government has introduced, the devil is always in the details.

What does that actually mean? I have no idea what that means. I don't know whether I'm getting “meaningful human contact”. We don't know. Without a definition, it's difficult—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

The other side of that is, without it being defined, is there a possibility that without some clear ability to address what those requirements might be, the vague terminology is going to create an environment where there could be vexatious grievances by inmates because they're not getting meaningful human contact?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The language used in Bill C-83 is intended to refer generally to social interaction and psychological stimulation that is conducive to mental health and rehabilitation. That is what, by definition, is lacking in administrative segregation. For 22 out of 24 hours a day, a person is alone.

We intend to change that substantially. That may be programming staff from the outside. It could be elders. It could be various kinds of counsellors. It could be mental health professionals, a whole range of people. It could indeed, from time to time, be other compatible inmates.

The whole point is to try to change the course of behaviour of these individuals so that they pose less of a risk to themselves and less of a risk to others and to society generally.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

But isn't that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I was just getting going.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I know.

It's Ms. Dabrusin's five minutes and she's never had to question whether she's had meaningful human contact.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm going to leave that.

Before today, I was reading through the two cases, the Ontario case and the B.C. case, as well as the Ashley Smith inquiry recommendations. One of the things that really struck me was how we provide services to inmates who are mentally ill.

In the decision from the B.C. court, it states:

On the evidence before this Court, the most serious deficiency in dealing with administrative segregation placements is the inadequacy of the Government's processes for dealing with the mentally ill.

How does this bill respond to those concerns that were raised by the court?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The answer to that, Ms. Dabrusin, is that this lies at the core of what Bill C-83 is all about. That is, to provide the capacity in the segregated intervention units through mental health professionals and others to make the interventions, and to provide the treatment and care that will in fact address those mental health issues.

I think I mentioned in the debate in the House that, with respect to the overall population of offenders, the number of those with significant mental health issues is in the neighbourhood of 70%, I believe, when you add men and women together. The number for women is much higher and the number for men is a bit lower. Mental health difficulties are involved with the vast majority of offenders. If we're not addressing that and just sort of storing people until the time runs out and they're eventually released, they're very likely to come out of the system in worse shape and more dangerous than before they went in.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

One of the things that struck me was the finding of facts in the B.C. case about some individuals actually seeing someone for mental health services only once a week.

I believe there's a change on that in this bill that would require more visits.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

As Commissioner Kelly mentioned, in these units, there would be a visit by a health professional once per day. The legislation specifically safeguards the professional independence of the mental health professional to be able to exercise their judgment according to what they believe is right.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

One of the other things I was looking at was the truth and reconciliation calls to action. One of them, number 36, calls upon—and I'm abbreviating—the federal government to work with aboriginal communities to provide culturally relevant services to inmates on issues such as substance abuse, family and domestic violence, and overcoming the experience of having been sexually abused.

With the finding in the B.C. case, there was a section 15 violation for indigenous people.

I have just under two minutes left. Can you let me know how this bill might address the call to action and that finding?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

It does so in several ways.

Also, beyond the legislation, there are the financial commitments made in the last two budgets that provide more resources for dealing with indigenous-based programming within federal institutions. We are, by this legislation, essentially enshrining in law the Gladue principle.

For the last 15 or 20 years, the correctional service has applied the Gladue principle in the way it has tried to function, but now it will actually be enshrined in law that indigenous histories, backgrounds and characteristics need to be taken into account in the custodial transfer and treatment decisions made by the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Section 80, I believe, of this new bill states, “Without limiting the generality of section 76, the Service shall provide programs designed particularly to address the needs of Indigenous offenders.”

Could you tell me a little bit about what the thought was behind that?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

There has been criticism over the years from the courts—you referred to some of it—the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the John Howard Society, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and others that indigenous people do not have as much access in our federal institutions as other inmates have to programming and services that are appropriate to them. By the legislation and by the budget commitments that we are making, we are trying to address that issue. You may recall that this is a mandate that was given to both the Minister of Justice and to me in our mandate letters from the Prime Minister.

We were also told to implement the findings of the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith. This legislation takes some important steps forward in doing that. Ashley Smith's case was one of the very tragic circumstances where an indigenous woman with significant mental health issues was failed by our system, and we're trying to address that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, and thank you, Minister.

Mr. Eglinski, take five minutes, please.

[Jim Eglinski, Yellowhead, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today.

You mentioned during your input earlier the health care professional's independent decision-making. If a health care official visits an inmate once a day and that prisoner is being watched for 20 hours a day, and for four hours under the new act he or she can move around, you're saying that the health care professional has the ability to say that the person should be released or removed from that part of the jail.

Is there an appeal or a method under the new act whereby the institutional head or the commissioner may say, no, we do not think it's safe, or in the interests of the guards, the other prisoners or even the inmate himself or herself?

We're going to be dealing with, yes, a professional person who might be seeing that person for half an hour a day, in contrast to the guards and the institution, watching that person for 23 and a half hours a day. I wonder whether there is a mechanism for the head or the commissioner to object to that assessment.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Commissioner Kelly can explain the exact process here, but my understanding of how this would work is that if the health care professional thinks there's something fundamentally wrong—that this person is in a circumstance such that his conditions are making him worse, not better—then the health care professional can give that very emphatic advice to the administrators of the institution, and they have the ability to then act on the advice.

Anne, can you elaborate on this ?

[Anne Kelly]

Yes.

The health care professional can make a recommendation to the institutional head.

I think your concern is about what happens if the institutional head doesn't follow that advice. Obviously, a health care professional who felt strongly that the conditions of confinement should be changed or that an offender should be removed from the SIU would in all likelihood consult with the region through health services, and then the question would get to our assistant commissioner of health services and would be dealt with.

Patient advocates are going to be part of this model as well, to help inmates navigate through the health care system to better know their rights. They are then better engaged in their health treatment.