Evidence of meeting #139 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was needs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to begin with Mr. Paterson. I was wondering if you have a copy of Bill C-83 on your computer in front of you.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Yes, I can bring it up.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Perfect.
The only reason is that I want to clarify something. I know that I've heard Monsieur Dubé bring up proposed paragraph 32(a) a few times, and that's in the section entitled “Purpose”. He referred to the wording “or other reasons”.
I just wanted to have your take on it because proposed section 34, immediately below, says:
The Commissioner may authorize the transfer of an inmate into a structured intervention unit under section 29 only if the Commissioner is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative to the inmate’s confinement in a structured intervention unit and the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that
Then there is listed proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in which there is no general basket clause.
I'm just wondering—if I can have that time—because you commented on the “or other reasons”. How does that tie in with proposed section 34?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin.
What we have seen in the existing regime is that, as I was just explaining, purposes that were not set out as the reasons that people go into administrative segregation, or purposes for which people were put into administrative segregation, notably, for the purpose of punishment, is not found anywhere as a reason for administrative segregation in the current bill.
I know this list is more limited than the other purposes contained in the “Purpose” section, but our concern nevertheless stands that prisoners may wind up in these places for reasons other than they're supposed to. That is another reason that we think it's so important that there be an external oversight mechanism.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
First of all, I absolutely agree with you about the external oversight, so that's not my discussion.
I wanted to clarify, because it seems to me that the point you're taking is in fact a “not following the law as written” point when you're saying people being placed in...when it's not one of the listed reasons. I just wanted to clarify from my reading of it, that, in fact, it can only be done on listed reasons.
The oversight piece is to make sure that it's followed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
That was the part that I was hoping....
About the oversight, it seems like a smaller point, but I've been looking at the Ontario legislation, which never did come into effect but did pass three readings. It requires that written reasons be provided when a person is transferred into, in that case, a segregation unit.
I was wondering whether it would be helpful if Bill C-83 were amended to include a requirement for written reasons, including what alternatives were considered for that transfer. There would be some type of a record provided to the inmate, and it would also just be available so that when you get to the oversight part, you have something at least to track it back.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Our organization typically takes a position that written reasons for decisions that have a real, fundamental effect on someone are always a good thing.
I wouldn't say that its inclusion would cure the other defects in the bill, and you're not taking me to say that, but sure, written reasons would be useful. I agree.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
What about when it's a voluntary transfer, for when an inmate has requested to be transferred into a structured intervention unit? Would it also be useful to have that type of a record kept, that this was requested and these were the other alternatives that were considered, before making that transfer?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I think that would be quite important.
The position that we took, and continue to take, in our litigation is that voluntary, in many cases, is not voluntary. Currently, if someone wants to be in administrative segregation, to us that's an indication that there is a failure of some kind that is going on in the general population to protect the individual, etc. We do think that those voluntary placements also would benefit from what you're talking about.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm just trying to get the pieces. As far as I see it, part of this is building the oversight. There are the oversight mechanisms and you've talked about that a bit, but there's also creating the extra layers within it. That's why I'm asking these questions.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I understand. Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I just wanted to be clear. I'm not putting that as an alternative.
I'm sure you've had a chance to look at the Ontario legislation. Is there anything that you like, as well, within that legislation? For example, I notice that somebody has raised the segregation prohibitions in the Ontario legislation. Is that translatable to a federal context? Is that something?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
We don't see why not.
For example, in the Leask ruling in B.C., it was found that to the extent that the current system allows any placement of someone with mental illness or disability in segregation, it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It discriminates against them.
Whether it's mothers with child, minors or individuals who have mental illnesses, one wouldn't find us objecting to prohibitions on those placements.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Stapleton, I really appreciated when you talked about the importance of treating people with humanity. That's a basic piece.
One of the things that struck me—I believe it was in the B.C. case, but I might be blurring it with the Ontario case—was that a lot of the contact was from meal hatches. People actually hadn't had direct—and I noticed that in the Ontario legislation as well—there was a requirement that when there was contact, that it was not through the meal hatch.
Do you think that would be helpful to have? Some type of a clarification that a conversation through a meal hatch is not, in fact, meaningful contact?
4:15 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
I think that would help, whether it goes in the regulations or not, because you're absolutely correct that talking through a meal hatch or through a crack in the door is not meaningful interaction at all. You need to have a much more normal interaction with these men and women, in order to be meaningful.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
November 22nd, 2018 / 4:15 p.m.
Jim Eglinski Yellowhead, CPC
Thank you.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today.
I'll start with Mr. Paterson. We've had a number of witnesses come to us and say that solitary confinement is necessary and then we've had others, who work in the field, who say it's essential for inmates to have solitary confinement. We can use whatever terminology they want to use in the new bill.
Do you feel that there still is some need for that within the penal institutions of Canada?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Thank you for the question.
We've never taken the position in our litigation that there shouldn't be a form of isolation or confinement that CSC could resort to when it needed to in very serious cases and emergencies, etc.
Under the current system, our position is that there should not be prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement. There should be review and so on and so forth. That's our position.
4:20 p.m.
Yellowhead, CPC
Mr. Stapleton, can we get a reply from you, since you've been working in the field for a long time?
Thank you for your service there.
4:20 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
Thank you.
Yes, there is certainly always a need. There are always individuals who are too violent or too disturbed to take quickly and move them back into the general population or even to allow them to mingle with two or three. There are those times when you need to do that.
However, even when they're down there, we still need to provide them with some sort of interaction with program officers, psychologists, psychiatrists and health care people. We absolutely have to provide them with that.
4:20 p.m.
Yellowhead, CPC
Thank you for the comment you made. I think Ms. Dabrusin said the same thing earlier. The interaction between prison guards and the inmates is so crucial.
I know when I attend the Grand Cache Institution in my area, which is medium security, I've wandered through there with the guards and intermingled with the prisoners. You see a very strong relationship between some guards and the prisoners, a very good working relationship. Then you see some intensity, as I guess I'll describe it.
Are we training our young prison guards adequately to deal with these prisoners? I used to escort prisoners for a number of years in my role as a police officer, and if you work with them and have a good relationship, it makes it so much easier.
Are we giving enough training, and will Bill C-83 do it for us?
4:20 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
I haven't been on core training for almost 40 years.
I would say no, at this point in time we are not. I speak from my experience of seeing new correctional officers come off core training and start interacting, and they do seem to lack those skills.
The people I represent, program officers, parole officers, teachers, and so on, naturally have those skills, but—
