Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I feel that at this time I need to suggest a motion. We've had nearly eight hours of testimony from witnesses. We've had numerous witnesses here testifying on Bill C-83. Other than Mr. Stapleton's cautious optimism about Bill C-83, and the minister's staff who support it, obviously, no one is supporting this legislation.

We're required and asked by the committee to have our amendments to committee on Monday. Right now, it looks like the entire bill needs to be redone. The entire bill needs amending. Our role as a committee, as I understand it, is to give oversight of the minister's legislation and to provide direction. We are to suggest changes based on the needs of Canadians as well as the expert advice we receive.

It is therefore imperative to me that this legislation be right, since the rehabilitative capacity of Corrections for our inmates as well as other lives are on the line—other inmates, guards, as well as the people in our communities. Given our committee's role and the importance of the legislation, I cannot in good conscience move ahead with this legislation. I don't think this committee should either. It is deeply flawed. Making minor amendments would only paint over a problem.

Additionally, this government appeared before the court of appeal yesterday and asked for an extension on this particular piece of legislation. They did so for a number of reasons—i.e., to meet the demand of the 2017 court order that the government had under December 18 to get this passed to make its solitary confinement oversight process compliant with the charter.

I, therefore, move the following:

That, in light of recent testimony the Committee has heard during its study of Bill C-83, the Committee suspend its study in recognition of the Bill's flaws and inadequate consultations; resume its study once the Government of Canada has consulted with involved parties and ensured there are no flaws; and that the Committee report this recommendation to the House.

I put this motion before the clerk in both languages.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Ms. Damoff, do you have something to add?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Chair, I think what Mr. Motz meant to say was that he was providing notice of motion. To my understanding, he presents the motion today and it has to be presented within so many hours. The clerk can clarify how many hours it is, whether it's 24 or 48 hours.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

No, because we're currently discussing the topic. It's part of the body of the study, and a motion can be presented during the study.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Is there a debate?

No. Okay.

I'll give the chair his seat back and take my seat to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Apparently I shouldn't leave, should I.

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

I was actually disappointed you'd left.

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

There's a motion on the table from Glen.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. This is a debatable motion but there's no debate.

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Motz, you have 30 seconds.

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

Perfect.

In the opinion of the witnesses who are here at this time, do you believe this bill provides the support that those who are incarcerated need in order to deal with mental health and addiction issues? Will it help in that regard?

[Jonathan Rudin]

The bill as currently constructed doesn't change the situation at all. I don't think we could expect different results if this bill were passed in its current form.

[Prof. Debra Parkes]

The bill is not primarily about the delivery of mental health care, although there are some pieces to it. In my view, the bill is flawed for the reasons I talked about at the beginning. I think it will actually expand rather than reduce the use of segregation. I do think it is flawed for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Ms. Dabrusin, please, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank all of you for your testimony and your help. In particular, I'd like to thank the Native Women's Association of Canada for providing a written and tangible amendment, because it really helps to ground us in the wording. Thank you for that.

I also wanted to touch on some other issues you raised. In particular, you've mentioned it a couple of times now when you talked about elders and who decides who's an elder. Partly, I guess, in terms of my question, is this something that possibly ends up more as a policy piece as to how you apply the legislation, or is there a piece that you'd want to see as a change in the legislation?

What would you propose as the best way? I've heard other people raise this too. You're not the first. How would you suggest that we broach that concern?

[Elana Finestone]

We do provide some recommendations in our brief that touch on potential amendments. One of them would be that under “Definitions”, we'd recommend making a proposed section 85.1, where there would be a special definition for indigenous inmates. It would say, “For Indigenous inmates, health care also means mental health, cultural and spiritual care provided by Elders or Indigenous spiritual advisors, at the Indigenous inmate’s discretion.” That would be one example.

Under “Health care obligations”, for proposed section 86.1, we would add under proposed paragraph 86.1(a), which talks about “autonomy”, that health care shall be provided to inmates and this service shall “support the autonomy and the independence of Elders and Indigenous spiritual advisors and their freedom to exercise, without undue influence, their judgment in the care and treatment of Indigenous inmates”.

Those are two examples, and we would also propose a new paragraph (d) in proposed section 86.1, which would say something like, “following an Indigenous inmate’s disclosure of any factors in 79.1(a) to (d), provide the Indigenous inmate culturally appropriate, one-on-one counselling in their preferred language with either a registered mental health care professional, Elder or Indigenous spiritual leader, at the Indigenous inmate’s discretion.”

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

Thank you for that. I appreciate having you read that out.

You also had talked, though, about the qualification—or what is the consultation—to decide who is an elder. I was wondering if you could perhaps give guidance as to what you would suggest is the best way to ground that.

Mr. Rudin.

[Jonathan Rudin]

The word “elder” gets used a lot. When it's used in a professional sense, it has a different meaning. One of the difficulties we have is that a correctional institution may have an institutional elder, and that's an elder that the correctional institution says is an elder. That's fine, but that may or may not.... It often has great meaning to inmates, but for some inmates it has no meaning because an elder is someone you choose. You don't go to “elder school” and you don't get—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jonathan Rudin]

I've been contacted by people, very well-meaning people, who say, “Give me the list of elders.” It's not analogous to religious leaders.

What it means is that the institution can provide what the institution provides, but it has to realize that is not the response to an individual if someone says, “The elder that I need is this person, because that's my tradition”.

CSC moves people across the country. You can be Mi'kmaq and be in B.C. The odds that you're going to have a Mi'kmaq elder in B.C. are pretty low. If you want an elder, and there's someone who can provide that service and that person is there, they should have access to the institution to provide that service. That's not the way the situation is currently working.

[Elana Finestone]

Yes. I would add to that and say that you need to consult with organizations like NWAC that work very closely with their provincial and territorial organizations. They know what they need, and they can answer these questions.

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

Thank you. It's just because you flagged it when you did your initial presentation, so I was trying to ground it a bit as to what you would want to see us do. I appreciate it. I think that helps to flag it. I'm good—

No...? Am I not good, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No, you're not great.

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

I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have seven seconds.

On behalf of the committee, I do want to thank you for your contributions to this study of Bill C-83, Professor Parkes, Ms. Finestone, Mr. Pink and Mr. Rudin. This is all helpful.

With that, it does bring an end to our witness list.

I remind colleagues that you must have any amendments in by 4 p.m. on Monday. Also, given that I left for one minute and you brought a motion, I'm a little nervous about Tuesday with the ministers. I'm hoping that when I'm sitting here next Thursday I'll have no reports of any difficulties with the ministers.