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.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
There are so many issues with that comment, with all due respect. Let's look at proposed paragraph 34(b), which states:
(b) allowing the inmate to be in the mainstream inmate population would jeopardize the inmate’s safety;
Who's jeopardizing the inmate's safety? It could be because the person has mental issues and finds himself or herself drawn into violent altercations such that he or she does need psychiatric services.
Proposed paragraph 34(a) talks about someone who has acted or intends to act in a manner that jeopardizes safety, and so on. Again, there's no protection that says that in the event that they don't have resources to properly treat an inmate who may meet any and all of these criteria, quite frankly, and who actually requires proper help, an inmate will not be put into an SIU, which is essentially solitary confinement.
There are all kinds of points there that are of concern, and this in no way alleviates that concern. If it did, I'm sure the witnesses would have said as much.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That means that NDP-5 is still alive, so we're on NDP-5.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment NDP-5 is similar to the amendment Ms. May just proposed, except that I'm adding key elements that were raised in the questions I put to witnesses and in the exchange we just had. We want the bill to state clearly "for security reasons other than the lack of staff members or cells in the penitentiary."
At the time—it was during the last Parliament, if I'm not mistaken—this committee had tabled a report addressing the overpopulation of certain penitentiaries, which had led to violent incidents and could result in inmates being transferred to segregation cells. The shortage of officers is a resource problem that was raised many times. We want it to be expressly stated that inmates must not be confined in segregation as a result of a lack of staff in the penitentiaries.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'll just take all of the reasons that I put out for the last amendment and apply them here, just to save us time. I think proposed section 34 covers our ground.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP-6 is identical to PV-10 and can't be moved. I was kind of enjoying that back-and-forth for a while.
We are now on PV-11.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
4:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I should mention at some point while I have the floor that I have to be in House for a bit of private member's business, the introduction of second reading of Bill S-203.
I know my amendments don't need me here, because they're deemed to have been moved. I'd appreciate it if the Liberal members of the committee would argue my amendments for me in my absence and convince themselves that they're really good while they do it. I'll try to keep my absence to a minimum.
In PV-11, what we're looking at right now is the existing amendment. The existing language talks about opportunity. I'm trying to ensure with this amendment that we respond to the witnesses, many of whom pointed out that an opportunity that can't be used, an opportunity that doesn't provide for meaningful human contact, isn't a real opportunity.
I've brought in this language of “meaningful human contact” and “a reasonable opportunity”, instead of just “opportunity”.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I like the idea of a reasonable approach. However, since the word "meaningful" isn't defined in any general way, I'm afraid the effect might be the contrary. In other words, a reasonable approach could lead an institution to determine that the desired level of reasonableness has been reached after a single step is taken. In that case, no additional effort would be made respecting that exchange.
I propose that we not support this approach in order to preclude any limits on procedures. However, we will address this issue later, perhaps in a little more detail.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
For fear of weighing in on this topic and getting the abuse that I did the last time I brought up “meaningful human contact”, I—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
True. Thank you.
In a rare show of support, I have to agree with Mr. Picard. We don't know what “meaningful human contact” means, so to change it from “meaningful” to “a reasonable” would be...what? There's really no definition of either one.
I don't know if we're substantially changing anything, Ms. May. I don't know.
4:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If I may, Mr. Chair, it's for the structure of the bill, of course, that I'm putting in the amendment for “meaningful human contact” in my eleventh amendment.
My twelfth amendment provides the definition, and the definition comes from wording.... It's quite interesting that one of the only countries where we could find a definition of “meaningful human contact” is Ireland. We've drawn the amendment from that. It was recommended very strongly by the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the East Coast Prison Justice Society and so on.
The definition of “meaningful human contact”, for instance, suggests that you're close enough together that you can have a conversation, that you're allowed to have a normal direct physical contact that is not mediated by such things as bars, restraints, security glass or screens. It's sustained and intentional.
That's the longer definition. I don't need to read it in now. If it were a concern for accepting the language that we don't have a definition, we will have a definition if you're prepared to go along with these amendments.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well, if anybody can define “meaningful human contact”, it would have to be the Irish.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Green
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
All those in favour of PV-11?
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
In all of its meaningful human contact, PV-11 is defeated.
Okay, we have PV-12.
4:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I think that's one for Hansard, that the Parliament of Canada has defeated “meaningful human contact”.
4:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Okay.
Moving on to the definition of “meaningful human contact”, I think I've already spoken to it. In the interests of time, I'll remind you that this is language that comes from Irish rule 27 of the Prison Rules and from the testimony of numerous witnesses.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
With NDP-7, we have another kick at the can on “meaningful human contact”.
Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate the amendments that Ms. May brought forward. I think that having that definition was very clear. It's unfortunate that it was defeated. I'm happy to have voted in favour of it.
That said, I know that the next amendment, if I'm not mistaken, from Ms. Dabrusin, is very similar. That's something that I wholeheartedly agree with. It adds a record-keeping requirement, which I would support, so I will withdraw mine and support LIB-3.