Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

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.

On the agenda

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19: Votes 1a and 5a under Canada Border Services Agency, Vote 1a under Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Vote 1a under Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vote 1a under Correctional Service of Canada, Votes 1a and 5a under Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Vote 1a under Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Vote 1a under Parole Board of Canada, Votes 1a, 5a and 10a under Royal

MPs speaking

Pierre Paul-Hus

Sven Spengemann

Also speaking

Angela Connidis Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Ruby Sahota Brampton North, Lib.

Luc Bisson Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada

Jim Eglinski Yellowhead, CPC

Juline Fresco Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice

Clerk of the Committee Mr. Olivier Champagne

November 29th, 2018 / 5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Following up on what Ms. May said in respect of her previous amendment that she talked about, I agree that it's very important for procedural fairness that there be a record kept of the transfer and the reasons for transfer, as well as any alternatives considered in making that decision. It's essential for the person to know why they have been transferred and for this information to be provided within one working day after the transfer so that they have the reasons for the decision.

It's a matter of procedural fairness. It's been raised by other witnesses. I hope everyone will support this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Amendment PV-17 is deemed moved. Does anyone wish to speak to it?

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I would speak in support. I don't want to presuppose Ms. May's intentions, but if you read the amendment, you see that she is obviously seeking

the same rights and conditions of confinement as other inmates,

and I think that is something that is appropriate when it comes to protecting the rights of those in the SIUs.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Is there any further debate?

Seeing none, those in favour of amendment PV-17, please indicate.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment LIB-4.1, we have Monsieur Picard.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

The excesses that can be committed over the four hours that inmates may spend outside their cells have been debated at length. We respect inmates by affording them this opportunity from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. In so doing, we prevent individuals from going out at 2 a.m. This allows for a reasonable and proper schedule.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Is there debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I want to add an amendment. I don't know how this would be added in, but I think we are missing the “reasonableness” here. I do have an amendment in this same vein later on, that the opportunities.... I appreciate the intention of adding the times to be helpful, but I think some of the issues that were raised were about more than just the time of day, so I seek some guidance here, perhaps.

I don't know if the proper way to amend it would be to say “a reasonable opportunity” in each case or to add a paragraph (c) and say that the opportunities in paragraphs (a) and (b) be reasonable. I don't know what we can do to add in that word.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I'm sorry, but where would you be putting in “reasonable?” Would it be in a separate paragraph?

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I'm seeking guidance on that, on the proper legal wording.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Is there any instruction...?

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I don't know if we add paragraph (c) and say that “the opportunities in paragraphs (a) and (b) be reasonable”. If that's a possibility, that's probably the easiest one if that's doable.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

What about saying under paragraph (a) “a reasonable opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours...”?

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

And then do the same thing in paragraph (b)?

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

It would be “a reasonable opportunity to interact...”.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I'm okay with that as well.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Do you want to go with that?

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Yes.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Okay. That is a subamendment.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Could I speak to that?

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Yes. Are you debating the subamendment?

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Yes.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

I actually am a little concerned that adding “reasonable” in there might have a detrimental effect. I'm just looking for clarity. I don't disagree with the member at all, but if we add the word “reasonable”, does it give people the opportunity to say “No; well, we made every reasonable effort and we couldn't do it”, whereas if we specify just “opportunity”, is that more powerful than adding the word “reasonable” in there?

Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Angela Connidis

Yes. Putting “reasonable opportunity” actually qualifies the kind of opportunity, and it could be more narrowly applied than just leaving “opportunity” to have as broad a definition as possible.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Mr. Dubé, what do you think?