Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[Angela Connidis]

Yes, that's correct. A health care professional is involved. Under Bill C-83, a health care professional could recommend the alteration of conditions or the termination of confinement, and the institutional head would have to take that into account. A health care professional visits daily, and health care advice has to be taken into account in any decision related to placement in an SIU.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Now it's Mr. Dubé, and then Ms. May.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that answer, but I think that's just it. The issue is that it “could” be taken into account, but it's far from being binding.

I'll just read the key part of the amendment. Unfortunately, I'm feeling unable to read the whole thing. I want to save whatever voice I have left for later, but I do think this part is worth reading.

Subsection (2) after line 20 on page 6 would read as follows:

Upon receipt of a recommendation under subsection (1), the institutional head shall take measures to have the inmate removed from the unit.

Here we're making it explicitly clear that should the health care professional make the recommendation, it's not a matter of taking it under advisement; they must. I know “must” isn't the word I used there, but it's obviously pretty explicit in empowering the recommendations of health care professionals in this instance.

If the government is serious about wanting those medical professionals to be empowered, this is much more in line with that, and certainly with what we've seen in a variety of arenas, whether the United Nations or the Ontario and B.C. courts.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. May is next.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment, PV-22, is really quite explicit in saying that if the medical health care professional finds that the situation is deteriorating, it's not just that they have the option of saying something; they shall. They shall report. They shall say something.

Then if the institutional head receives the recommendation from a health care professional that the inmate who is confined should be removed from the unit, they shall act. If the institutional head receives a recommendation that the conditions of confinement should be altered, the institutional head shall take measures to alter them. If the institutional head does not follow a recommendation made by a health care professional, they will have to explain the reasons in writing to the registered health care professional and to the inmate.

These wordings are much stronger and much clearer, and they could have prevented Ashley Smith's death.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate on NDP-3?

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We are on PV-9.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I didn't stop to explain to the committee this time around that PV is Parti vert, but you probably knew that. The government gave me that because when we first started having me come to committees, it was under Harper, and so “G” would have been good for “green”, but they were using “G” for “government” then.

That will happen some day, Glen. I know you laugh, but still, that's why I'm Parti vert. The “GP” would have been taken as “government party”.

I wanted to tell you that story by way of an explanation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The Green Party does aspire to government?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Of course.

That's our purpose, just as it is for all other parties.

Now let's talk about amendment PV-9.

This one is an attempt to respond to the word “appropriate”, which many witnesses, particularly Senator Kim Pate, found to be a very vague approach to drafting. As she noted, it does not provide any protections to individuals and will essentially leave it to the courts to set the standards.

My amendment—not to read it all out to you—replaces “appropriate” with “least restrictive” measures and adds a requirement to provide a living environment at the lowest security level required for public safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The bill already makes more specific provision for living conditions in the structured intervention units. I think what's being proposed is more unclear than what's stated in the bill itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on NDP-4.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is again in the same vein as what's been expressed when we talk about “least restrictive”. We're looking here for SIUs to be a measure of last resort, really making it clear that we don't want to see systemic and banal use of them, which has unfortunately been the case far too often over the last number of years.

The bill would be amended by replacing line 11 on page 4 with the following: “(a) provide, only as a measure of last resort, an appropriate living environment for an”, and then it would go on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

[Ruby Sahota]

I believe this amendment is redundant. Proposed section 33 of the bill already establishes that the inmates' confinement into an SIU is “to end as soon as possible”, which implies that it's a measure of last resort.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on PV-10.

This is the Green Party's amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This one is for purposes of deleting vague wording in order to provide more precise wording.

There was testimony from Josh Paterson as well as Senator Pate and others that correctional investigators observed that this was accepted as well by the trial court. There were a lot of other reasons that went beyond security that folks were winding up in administrative segregation, including punishment, which was supposed to be under an entirely different regime. I've replaced “or other reasons” with “for security reasons”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I feel quite strongly about this one, in the sense that I brought it up when BCCLA was here. There was a real question as to what this proposed section 32 means and how it works with proposed section 34, which follows later in the bill.

There was a misunderstanding. Proposed section 32 sets out the purpose, but proposed section 34 is very clear that a transfer into an SIU is to occur only if the commissioner is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative, and then it has listed reasons.

The only possible way we could get rid of the “other reasons”, if we were reading it in the way that it seems to have been read by some, would be to transfer all of the wording from proposed section 34 in there to replicate it again, but it's not necessary, because proposed section 34 uses the word “only” and it has listed reasons. I don't think it is necessary, and in fact if we were going to start making these amendments, we would have to add a whole lot more wording up into proposed section 32 to make up for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé is next.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support this amendment and have a similar one—one where I put some water in my wine after that, in keeping with our tradition here at this committee.

On a more serious note, I do remember Ms. Dabrusin's line of questioning. I believe that when we use the words “no reasonable alternative”, we still run into the issue that has been raised, which is that if there is a lack of resources, the commissioner could make the determination in the event that an inmate meets the criteria outlined in proposed paragraphs 34(a) and 34(b). For example, if there are no psychiatric services—which speaks to the correctional investigator's report—it could be deemed that because of a lack of resources, there is no reasonable alternative than to put an inmate there.

Notwithstanding that language, I think the same problem exists. For that reason, I'm supportive of both Ms. May's amendment PV-10 and also my amendments further on that are in that same vein.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I don't want to too heavily belabour the point, but it goes on. I wasn't going to read out the whole section, because we'd be here for a while; it's a long one.

Proposed section 34 doesn't say only “no reasonable alternative”. It goes on to say, “and the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that”, and then it has enumerated grounds.

It's actually pretty clear in its wording, and none of this says “no available psychiatric services” as part of it. It's listed in proposed section 34. We need to understand that proposed section 32 sets out the general purpose of what they're doing, but the transfer is clear, is mandated and is listed in proposed section 34.