Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order. I see it close enough to 3:30 to get ourselves started.

We certainly have quorum. I'm pleased by the enthusiasm that all members are showing for our time together. Let's hope our time together is not quite as long as the [Inaudible—Editor]. I'm counting on Mr. Motz to keep the Christmas cheer going here.

First of all, may I thank Mr. Paul-Hus for subbing for me on Tuesday? I'm told that the next motion is an impeachment motion for me.

I appreciate your standing in.

The analysts and I were down in Washington getting an education in American politics—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

He even gave me less time than you do, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

—and this seems to be an easy challenge, relatively speaking.

Arising out of Tuesday, do I have the permission of the committee to report the supplementary estimates to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for that.

With that, we will engage in the business of the day. I thank the officials for being here.

We start off with what I hope is a pattern here, which is, shall clause 1 of Bill C-83 carry? There are no amendments.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

That puts us into clause 2. The first amendment to clause 2 is NDP-1. We'll go with NDP-1 and note the relationship between NDP-1 and PV-1.

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hopefully, my voice survives this whole process.

I want to say while I have the floor as I move the amendment that in seven and a half years as a parliamentarian, I have not seen a bill that has been panned by every single witness who has appeared before this committee, notwithstanding the minister and his officials.

That said, the amendments that I'll be presenting today, including this one, represent what the witnesses have suggested to us would be the best possible solution, again, notwithstanding that this is probably a bill that would be best thrown out and taken back to the drawing board. We'll wait to see what happens in the B.C. courts.

Mr. Chair, NDP-1 seeks to reintroduce language that used to be in the act prior to being removed a number of years ago. It was actually in Bill C-56, the original attempt this government made at resolving the awful issues related to solitary confinement, and is constitutional, but, as many witnesses said when it came up, should also be in the legislation.

That language is:

the Service uses the least invasive and restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders;

It is so moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

The Christmas cheer ended rather abruptly.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will accept this amendment with the removal of “invasive and”. I would move an amendment that we remove the words “invasive and”, so that it would read “the Service uses the least restrictive measures....” I believe—and I could be wrong on this—that this is actually what was in the previous legislation. We would accept it with that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That amendment to the amendment is moved, so we're debating the subamendment.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, because of the terms of the motion this committee passed, which compel me to be here should I want to put forward some tandem amendments—and you'll recall that this motion is not one I requested or appreciate—I do want to mention that one of the terms of that motion was that although I don't move my own amendments because they are deemed moved, I do get to speak to them.

The effect of what we're talking about here is “least restrictive”, exactly what's in my amendment, so I just wanted to speak to it and support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

We would move to the subamendment first, and that is just simply removing the word “invasive”...?

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

It removes “invasive and”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Those in favour of removing “invasive and”? Those opposed?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Is there any other debate on the main motion? Seeing none, those in favour of the motion as amended?

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

PV-1 now cannot be moved.

We have Ms. Damoff now, on LIB-1.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This motion has two parts to it. One part is adding the words “sexual orientation and gender identity or expression” and the second part of it adds the words “visible minorities”. While visible minorities in the past would have been captured by other groups, it was actually my colleague Celina who brought this to our attention and suggested that pulling out visible minorities.... In fact, we struggled a bit with the words to use there because I don't think any of us love “visible minorities” as a terminology, but it's one that exists in law. We've settled on that.

The second part was actually Celina's initiative, and then adding the other two to that clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It's not that I'm opposed to the principle, but I think it's already there. We're talking about gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences. That includes everyone, and this would be adding words for no purpose. That's just my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Sorry; I think I saw Mr. Motz first, and then I saw Ms. Sahota.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I wouldn't mind hearing from our officials on whether they feel that these proposed changes will have substantial impact on the intent of the original language.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Ms. Connidis.

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

I would just say that all actions of the Correctional Service of Canada are covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and these provisions are consistent with that act.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Do you mean in the original language or in the amendment?

[Angela Connidis]

It's the amendment.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Then you're supportive of the language in the amendment? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[Angela Connidis]

I'm not here to support. I'm only here to give advice.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Sahota is next.