Evidence of meeting #141 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
With that, CPC-2 is defeated.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)
Now we're back to clause 7 and amendment LIB-2.1.
Monsieur Picard, I hope we got over our ill feelings.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Yes, I'll try to do my best.
Based on the way the clause is written, the transfer decision would be made by a person in a senior position such that, if the decision were reviewed, it would be made by the same person since it was the most highly ranked person who made it. That would simply restore the order of the decisions. A transfer decision by a person in a senior position at the institution, but below that of the commissioner, could be properly reviewed by a supervisor.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On PV-8, we have Ms. May.
4 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This deals with a situation that I think everyone is painfully aware of, the transfer of prisoners. This is prisoner transfer we're talking about here in PV-8, at line 24 on page 3. We're talking about authorizing the transfer of a prisoner.
We know that in the case of Ashley Smith, the inquiry found that she had been transferred 17 times within the year that led up to her death. Transfers were primarily for administrative and capacity issues. They weren't part of any treatment plan.
The language of this amendment is taken directly from recommendations 59 to 62 of the coroner's inquest, to make sure that a transfer authorized under this section is subject to the following conditions:
(a) in the case of an inmate with health issues, to ensure continuity of care, his or her medical file must also be transferred;
(b) in the case of a female inmate with mental issues or disorders or self-harming behaviour, the transfer should only occur when it is safe to do so for health reasons;
(c) in the case of a female inmate transferred to a medical institution or treatment facility, the transfer should only occur when it has been approved by a registered health care professional and once a written plan is in place to re-integrate the inmate into her penitentiary following treatment; and
(d) in the case of a female inmate transferred to a penitentiary located away from her home, the transfer may be accompanied by the following measures:
(i) the inmate is allowed longer visits with the family members or support persons of their choice;
(ii) the inmate's means of access to family or support persons is increased; and
(iii) the inmate's family or support persons are provided with appropriate means of access when they are unable to visit the inmate due to financial reasons.
Again, this amendment comes directly from the recommendations of the jury in the inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith. I hope that the committee will consider accepting these recommendations and this amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I spoke briefly to this situation before. We won't support the amendment. I'm in the process of trying to draft something to send back with the bill to ask the Correctional Service to look at this issue.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the case of both amendments, we've heard about Liberals not supporting this idea and wanting to look at taking corrective measures and having it looked into. As Ms. May has stated much better than I could, the proposals mostly stem from two sources: first, from folks like Senator Pate, who have expertise that I certainly do not have, and so we look to them, and second, from the Ashley Smith inquest.
I think now is the time to put this into legislation and to cease studying it. This particular issue has been studied for decades now, and I think it's time to give it the power of law.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next we have CPC-2.1.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This is new language being proposed on clause 7, adding after line 24 on page 3 the following:
(2) A person who is sentenced, transferred or committed to a penitentiary may only be transferred to a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary that has been assigned a security classification that corresponds to the security classification assigned to the person.
The reason for that is to make sure that the Correctional Service of Canada has a very clear mandate in rules around how facilities and inmates are treated. CSC should not be transferring inmates to different areas of the institution or to another institution that does not meet that classification and they don't mesh. It works both ways. Not only will we keep maximum-security inmates out of minimum- or medium-security prisons, but also the other way around.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I would like the official representatives to confirm that this is already common practice.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada
Yes, it's common practice to the extent that correctional services may have what are classified as multi-level security units or institutions.
If I'm correctly interpreting what's being proposed here, inmates who didn't have a medium- or maximum-security classification couldn't be placed in a medium- or maximum-security institution. That would limit correctional services' ability to manage emergencies. Units may be assigned multi-level security classifications in certain cases to facilitate the management of inmates with various security classifications, while guaranteeing the highest security level for the general inmate population.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'd like to just query that further with the officials.
The proposed amendment is not talking about having an inmate in a facility that has different classifications inside of it; it's making sure that whatever area of that facility the inmate is in matches that particular inmate's classification. You could have medium-security prisoners in a medium-security area of a maximum-security prison.
I guess my question would be this: Do you have cells, individual cells, in a medium-security prison that are flipped to the classification change—that is, a cell classified as a maximum-security cell or a medium-security cell inside of a prison that is of a different classification? The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the safety of inmates—and the safety of the guards, obviously—without putting inmates in a position where there is someone who should not be in a general population with medium- or minimum-security individuals in a maximum-security prison.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada
Maybe I can give you an example. We have regional treatment centres that we would classify as multi-level security institutions. They therefore manage offenders with various classification levels. What would change are the safety protocols around the movement of the inmate and the personnel there to ensure the safety and security of that inmate and of the others. However, the actual environment itself is multi-level.
Therefore, it's not the cell or part of the institution that is classified based on the individual, but rather the entire unit or institution. That's where I see concern in terms of being able to manage with a very specific designation as it is laid out.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
LIB-2.2 has already been dealt with under LIB-1.1.
Therefore, shall clause 7 carry as amended?
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 8)
The first amendment is CPC-2.2.
Go ahead, Mr. Motz.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
This is similar to the other one. The new language, because there is no current one, is replacing line 31 on page 3 with the following:
any area in a penitentiary by taking into account the physical limitations and staffing needs of the penitentiary as well as the services it offers.
(2) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a change to a security classification in writing and notify the Minister of the proposed change at least 15 days before the change takes effect.
Bill C-83 seems to provide unlimited powers to the commissioner of corrections to reclassify institutions or parts of institutions. While this is perhaps a necessary use of authority in many circumstances, it should have checks and limits within it.
I think a very reasonable amendment is to put a limit on this. You can't [Technical difficulty—Editor] segregation unit unless it meets the needs of the type of classification. The government, through regulations, sets what these parameters are, and the commissioner has to operate within them.
That's the whole purpose behind this particular amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Perhaps the officials could help on this.
Because of the example that was given, when an area would be reclassified, would the Correctional Service not have to make sure that it satisfies the requirements for that level of security or for that reclassification?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada
I think I heard your question well.
Essentially, there are criteria. There are standards established for various levels of security. Therefore, it's not just a matter of changing the label or the identification of the unit or the institution. There are security measures in place for maximum institutions that would not necessarily exist in medium or minimum institutions or units.
If I understood your comment correctly, indeed there are standards in place that would govern that and would not allow us to simply repurpose or relabel without ensuring that those are in place.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I submit that this isn't a necessary change in terms of making sure that the classifications are done and are suitable. That's within what's there already. This doesn't add anything to what we're looking for as far as safety goes.
If there's a change in static security requirements, there would be a change in the staffing levels and everything that would need to change with that security level.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm curious to hear from the officials as to whether this particular proposed amendment is in line with the current regulations.