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.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Well, that's just it. We want it to be more narrow. Right now, having a broad definition is where we are open to the opportunities being insufficient to meet the intentions of the bill and the kind of time that's being offered to these individuals.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Do you see “reasonable$ as a restriction, or do you see “reasonable” as an expansion?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I actually think we're on the same page. I'm concerned that adding the word “reasonable” would allow someone to say that they made every reasonable effort and it wasn't possible. That's my concern with adding that in, whereas right now, without that in there, they have to be given an opportunity.
I'm just concerned that it opens it up to actually make it worse for the prisoners and not better.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
My interpretation is that the “reasonableness” qualifier is attached to the opportunity and not the giving of the opportunity. I don't necessarily share the interpretation there.
November 29th, 2018 / 5:10 p.m.
Jim Eglinski Yellowhead, CPC
I have some concerns with the amendment. I like the “reasonable” and I have a reason for that, which I will explain.
However, I have some concerns about the “every day between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.”
We have a lot of smaller medium-security and minimum-security institutions in which we may have a problem with an inmate. Let's just take the case of the Grande Cache Institution in my area. There may be some problems that force you to move all your inmates into one area. It could be because of an electrical failure or a fire or a gas leak.
Now, you can't mix the two because it might be very violent. “Reasonable” gives an opportunity for the institution to make a reasonable effort, and I think it's very sensible, because there are circumstances we're not going to think about that may arise. By not having “reasonable” in there and restricting them to those times...maybe they can't do it, and it's impossible. Now you're making a law saying they have to do it even though they can't.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I just wanted to see if this would add some clarification to the exchange between Ms. Damoff and Mr. Dubé.
Part of the confusion was around the fact that the “reasonableness” requirement isn't part of sentence 1. If it was “the service shall take reasonable steps to provide an inmate with an opportunity,” one could question whether or not they would actually carry it through.
Mr. Dubé is concerned about the possibility that an inmate might be sent outside in a snowstorm at minus 25 degrees and told, “Here's your opportunity to spend a couple of hours outside your cell.”
I don't know if that's the point of contention, but I have a sense it might be.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I shouldn't weigh in on debate here, but it seems as though we're talking about two separate things. If the word “reasonable” was after “the service shall, if reasonable, every day, send out,” etc., then “reasonable” would be a problem.
Anyway, I shouldn't weigh in on the debate.
Go ahead, Mr. Picard.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I'd like to raise two points. The first concerns reasonableness and reflects what several witnesses have said. They said they're afraid that correctional officers, out of a lack of trust or experience, will abuse their power and adopt the attitude that granting available hours isn't reasonable in the circumstances. A set schedule leads an institution to make the necessary effort to do what must be done within a suitable timeframe.
The second point concerns what Mr. Eglinski addressed. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about treating inmates in an integrated intervention unit in a respectful manner. If a problem arises, such as a natural disaster, a power outage or something like that, common sense dictates that the institution won't take into account the established schedule or the time in the decision it makes.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Picard, that's where the problem lies. Common sense isn't the same for everyone; we can agree on that.
We're speaking from an operational point of view, and I'd like to know the officials' opinions. There could be problems in this area. People say the idea is to show common sense, but can an inmate, in real life, file a grievance to say that this doesn't work? How does it work from an operational standpoint?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada
The bill already provides for the hours during which inmates may spend time outside their cells, between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. That can work.
The bill already provides for exceptions in the case of “force majeure” and events beyond our control. That would then be set down in writing. It's already provided for in the bill.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Does Mr. Dubé's amendment nevertheless make sense?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada
I'm going to repeat what's already been said on this subject. The addition of the word “reasonable” provides a factor that must be assessed in deciding whether to grant the opportunity to leave the cell. I think the intention stated in the bill is clear enough.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just wanted someone to clarify for me exactly where the word “reasonable” is going.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I believe it's under proposed paragraph 36(1)(a) “a reasonable opportunity to spend”, and 36(1)(b) “a reasonable opportunity to interact”.
Is that correct?