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 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, it's a lot warmer.
As an expert in Gladue writing as well as first nations' work, in your review of this bill, Mrs. Frank, does it raise any alarm bells? You just briefly touched on them in your opening statement. Is there anything that concerns you greatly about this bill that you can expand upon further?
4 p.m.
Gladue Writer, Alberta Justice, As an Individual
I think a concern is the terminology. I had some concerns about the “indigenous governing body”, which gives more authority to band councils rather than the grassroots or other organizations, because a lot of these people who are being released have to go through them. That excludes people in the urban environment, the cities.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
With that, what would you recommend to be the change?
If we're saying that the phraseology or the description that was used needs to changed in Bill C-83, what would you recommend that it should be?
4 p.m.
Gladue Writer, Alberta Justice, As an Individual
It was previously “aboriginal community”. I don't know why that changed to “governing body”. I think it's because of the political correctness that the government tries to have, not to offend band chiefs and councils, but sometimes that's where the problems begin.
4 p.m.
Gladue Writer, Alberta Justice, As an Individual
I think to have to go there...and the courts oftentimes will not make decisions for individual first nations people because of that notion.
The other thing is the definition of health. Who's going to provide these services? What is restorative justice? Define it, because we have so many groups in Canada. First nations people are not one homogenous group. You need to clearly define that. Also, you need to look at who's going to pay for this.
4 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I wish it were so, but I don't think it will be. I don't see any reason to expect that.
The bill continues to permit a lot of the same conditions to persist. The opportunities to have the four hours out of the cell and the two hours of meaningful contact can be taken away under a very broad discretion. It's very difficult to review, for whole bunches of different reasons.
Given what we know about the history of the prison system, we're very worried that will happen.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
With the time I have, my last question goes to Mr. Stapleton.
The minister has stated, in his statement to the committee, that the priority of corrections, and his priority, is to ensure the safety of staff, inmates and the public with Bill C-83. Do you feel this legislation ensures that happens in the way that it's intended?
4 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
Working in the prison environment is always an unsafe environment. As long as the personnel and the tools are there, I don't see why this would be significantly less safe than it was before.
Another thing we see is, if you create an oppressive environment and you're oppressing people, then those people who come out are probably less safe than when they went in. You have to try to create an environment where they're used to engaging under fairly normal circumstances.
November 22nd, 2018 / 4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Paterson, I want to start with you on the question of oversight, which has come up a number of times. As we all know, there was a previous bill that sought to address issues related to solitary confinement, Bill C-56, which was never debated in the House. One of the issues in that bill is that it actually had a mechanism, or at least more of a mechanism than we see in this legislation. The other issue was enforcement, as well, its having teeth, as we like to say.
I wonder if you can go into that, the importance of not just having a report or examining the particular case of an individual, but also having the ability to put remedial measures in place, so again understanding the link potentially with whether it's judicial or quasi-judicial oversight, or whatever form your organization believes that could take.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
It is very important. Moreover, the court in B.C. concluded that it was necessary that an external oversight body actually have a decision-making power. The hope would be that if everything went pretty well under this bill, you wouldn't have to be using that all the time and whatever body was there to do that could also make other orders. It wouldn't just be stay and a release. It could be in order to make sure that you comply with the statute, or to make sure they get their four hours and so on. However, having that order-making power is necessary, just based on a sanguine view of the evidence of years and years of a culture of non-compliance within the institution. In our view, it is not logical in the face of that unchallenged evidence to suppose that recommendations would be good enough.
In addition to the factors I mentioned before, that review should come in also at the 15-day mark of someone's placement in an SIU, and when someone spends 30 days or more non-consecutively in an SIU, that review power ought to also come into play.
As for who does it, I understand there are some restrictions as to what the committee can do about that, but there aren't those restrictions at report stage. It would be a good idea for the government to get it right, and if it requires spending power, for the government to bring in something appropriate.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you for that.
In terms of the wording in the legislation, if I'm not mistaken, in the B.C. decision they talked about the abuse, the systemic issues brought by witnesses we had on Tuesday, the fact that it became something that was basically almost operationalized. I don't want to be too crude in the terminology I am using.
One of the parts of the bill that I've harped on during this study is in proposed paragraph 32(a) where it talks about “for security or other reasons”. I wonder if there's concern from your organization, based on the work you've done with the court decision in British Columbia, that “or other reasons” flies in the face of that and allows this abuse that took place, which was the fact found in the decision that the government hasn't contested, to then continue with that type of regime in place.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
We do think that is problematic and we have good reason to think that. As the correctional investigator observed, and this was accepted as well by the trial court, there were a lot of other reasons that folks were winding up, for example, in administrative segregation that went beyond security, including punishment, which was actually supposed to be under an entirely different regime. Therefore, there definitely needs to be a sharpening up there.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I appreciate that.
Mr. Stapleton, I want to go to you because you raised the issue of funding. I want to make the connection with another point you raised, which was about treating people humanely.
Again at the risk of beating a few dead horses here on some issues that are important, the corrections investigator raised the issue that there's a lack of psychiatric services. We know that mental health is one of the key issues around the abuse or overuse of solitary confinement. Is there concern for you that if there's a continued lack of funding, some of the issues we're currently seeing will continue to happen regardless of any legislative solution?
4:10 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
If there's a lack of funding, we're very concerned that the cycle will continue. You're absolutely correct. The number of psychologists and psychiatrists, particularly psychiatrists who are working with these men and women, are very few and we absolutely need to increase that.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I apologize if I interrupted you, but I'm just wondering if, in your experience, you've seen some of this abuse of certain tools that are in the tool kit or of different measures in penitentiaries because there's been a lack of resources.
For example, it's almost a foregone conclusion from what we've seen reported publicly. They take individuals, saying, “We don't have the doctors. We're just going to put them in solitary because we can't deal with them.”
4:10 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
Certainly solitary confinement, administrative segregation, have been used in order to manage offenders who they struggle to manage using other tools. That is very disappointing because putting people in solitary confinement does not help.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
We talk about the public safety aspect, and I'll end on this. Again, I think it goes without saying from other testimony you've given this committee in the past that anything that's done that undermines the mental health of offenders is also a public safety risk for the folks you represent.
4:10 p.m.
National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees
Absolutely. Just imagine putting somebody in a cell for 22 hours a day. If they already struggle with mental health issues, that's just going to exacerbate those issues. As they continue their journey towards reintegrating into the community, if those are not dealt with at the appropriate times as they move along in that journey, public safety is going to suffer at the end.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
