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.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada
To answer your question, essentially the amendment would be consistent up to the point where there is this timeline for notification. That does not exist in a regulation currently.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived)
On CPC-2.3, again, it looks like it's Mr. Motz.
November 29th, 2018 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Again, this is new language in clause 8, adding, after line 31 on page 3, the following:
(2) If the Commissioner plans to assign a new security classification to a penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary, he or she must undertake consultations with nearby communities, staff members and any other impacted stakeholder identified by the Service.
(3) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a new security classification in writing, publish it on the departmental website at least 15 days before the change takes effect and notify the Minister of the change.
The whole idea behind this is that currently, the way Bill C-83 reads, it provides powers that are far too broad for the reclassification of facilities. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that all authorities have the appropriate checks and balances in place. As we've seen recently with healing lodges and other prison transfers, there is a limited accountability of the service to local communities, to victims and the stakeholders. That is the motive behind this amendment: that public consultation is required when the commissioner wants to reclassify an institution. I believe it needs to be in law, not in regulations, so that it's set in stone.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Again, Mr. Chair, there would be the appropriate staffing changes and security changes made when a security change is made. This isn't really a necessary piece. It doesn't really add to this. In fact, the necessary protections are put in place if there is a reclassification.
I would submit that this should not be supported.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If I heard that statement correctly, I guess what we're saying is that communities don't need to be advised if we change the classification of an institution from medium to maximum.
What we're saying here is that the communities have a role to play in the institutions that are in their communities. If they're not aware, how is that good for the community? How is that consulting the community? It just seems to fly in the face of common sense.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
It seems to me we're imagining that lowering a penitentiary's security classification from maximum to medium would have no consequences for the population of the surrounding area, but the opposite is true. Consider, for example, a penitentiary that was assigned a medium or minimum security classification when it was established. If you want to increase the security classification of one part of that penitentiary to maximum, you'll have to conduct a consultation. That definitely doesn't mean the same thing for the population.
Inmate types differ depending on whether a penitentiary has a minimum or maximum security classification. A minimum number of things must be in place. There is definitely no impact on the neighbouring population if an institution's security classification is reduced, but that's not true if it's increased.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair, as Mr. Motz and I continue our race to the bottom to see who will lose their voice first before the end of this meeting.
NDP-2 seeks to bring greater clarity to specify that any area that's being used for anything that in any way can be interpreted as segregation be deemed an SIU. This is to prevent the creation of similar areas that aren't required to follow the same type of review or accountability.
The example we have in mind is pod C at the Nova prison for women. We want to make sure that any time a prisoner is being in any way segregated, there are the appropriate accountability mechanisms, as lacking as they may be, provided by a law that is going into place. The amendment would add, after line 9 on page 4, a subsection that would read:
(2) Any area of a penitentiary where an inmate is segregated from the mainstream inmate population and is required to spend less time outside the inmate's cell or engaging in activities than an inmate confined in the mainstream inmate population shall be designated as a structured intervention unit.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, the bill already sets out what the conditions of confinement are of an SIU. We won't be supporting this amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other debate?
(Amendment negatived)
We will go to NDP-3, with Mr. Dubé.
I have a note here which says that if the amendment is adopted, PV-22, LIB-4.3, LIB-5.1 and PV-25 cannot be moved.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
This amendment seeks to, first of all, prohibit SIUs in women's facilities, which is probably one of the more ambitious parts of the amendment.
Currently there are only 10 women in segregation in all of Canada, and when Dr. Zinger was here, he said that he firmly believes we could immediately eliminate segregation in women's prisons altogether. He's obviously not the only one. Many stakeholders have expressed similar views.
The other issue is that it prohibits their use for individuals suffering from a serious mobility impairment or who are in need of palliative care.
The last part prohibits use of SIUs if it has been recommended by a health professional that the person, for their safety, not remain in an SIU. This would give actual legal force to not just having it be a recommendation from a health care professional, but actually making sure the full protection of the law is there with regard to health care professionals.
Chair, I want to mention the mobility impairment and the palliative care piece in going back to some of the arguments that have been made on a variety of amendments that have been presented.
We talk a lot about what the service's policies are, and I think it's important for the record that we distinguish between policies and law. Currently the policy prevents those with serious mental illness or disorders, for example, from being put into segregation, but it's just policy. It's not actually in the law. I think we can all agree that if we want to have the proper human rights protections in these instances, this should be in the law.
Naturally, as I said at the outset, this is a pretty ambitious amendment that seeks to go with the recommendations of many stakeholders, including folks like Dr. Zinger, who, as the correctional investigative officer, can be deemed to be quite reasonable. Quite frankly, I think all of the witnesses are quite reasonable on this issue. Even in the status of women committee, we've seen witnesses make recommendations to move towards this, given the way that women are disproportionately negatively affected by the use of segregation.
I would also like a recorded vote, please.
4:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As your earlier ruling noted, several of my subsequent amendments will be eliminated if this one is passed. I wanted to speak to that quickly and say that this is based on a lot of very strong evidence, as Matthew has already mentioned.
I think the Canadian Bar Association point is really important: The bill should be consistent with the United Nations' Mandela rules and should require health care providers to recommend that conditions of confinement be altered or that placement in a structured intervention unit be terminated if the prisoner's mental health is deteriorating due to isolation.
In terms of the medical interventions, the role of the registered health care practitioner in Mr. Dubé's amendment and in my amendment is one that comes out of multiple expert witness testimonies to the committee from the John Howard Society, Senator Pate, the East Coast Prison Justice Society, Dr. Zinger—as Matthew already mentioned—and the CCLA.
I ask that we consider what it means to allow the process of segregation for a prisoner. If we don't have a medical health care professional able to intervene at key points, we may end up having legislation that is not as good as intended. We might have more Ashley Smith cases. I think it's really important to ensure that there's a medical health practitioner included, as recommended in the NDP motion and in the ones you've mentioned that I've put forward.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm wondering if officials could clarify something.
I thought health care professionals were involved in inmate care when they were in SIUs. When I visited the regional treatment facility, they told me at the time that it was the only place where the health care professionals and the parole officers worked on an equal footing. It was my understanding that this was how it would work in the SIUs as well.