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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment PV-7, go ahead, Ms. May.
3:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
We've moved to a different page, but that's okay; you can keep up. It's just line 3 on page 3.
This requires that we give priority to section 28 accessibility considerations in placement transfer decisions, particularly in the case of marginalized groups, women and indigenous prisoners. This is again on advice from Senator Pate, but it's also drawn from some of the conclusions of the coroner's inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith. This is from paragraph 58 of the coroner's inquest, the jury recommendation that female prisoners be accommodated in the region most proximate to her family and social supports. This principle is a priority for young adults and/or female prisoners with mental health issues and/or self-injurious behaviour.
Again, Kim Pate's testimony to the committee referenced the Supreme Court decision earlier this year. Disregarding the possibility that risk assessment tools are systematically disadvantaging indigenous prisoners is failing to abide by the statutory duty to use accurate information and to account for systemic discrimination.
Again, if it's a woman or a indigenous person confined to penitentiary, the service shall give priority to taking into account the accessibility conditions.
Thank you. I hope people like this one too.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm going to speak to this, but you also have another amendment that talks about medical treatment and access to families.
While I recognize that has been an issue, in this one in particular you only refer to women and indigenous persons. I don't believe we're prepared to support the amendment. However, I would be prepared to draft a recommendation that it go back with the bill to the House, recommending that the Correctional Service examine—and I'll have to think of some wording here, so bear with me—the placement of offenders and the issues that arise because of proximity to family.
It is an issue and it's something that I think they need to look at. I won't be supporting the amendment, but I would be prepared to attach something to the bill when it goes back, recommending that corrections review that.
3:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm not familiar with that approach, Mr. Chair. If I may ask, how would that work, in effect, if we attach something to the bill? It's not part of the legislation, then.
November 29th, 2018 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We did it on Bill C-71 as a way of highlighting an issue. In that case in particular, it was on provincial issues, but this is for something that we feel strongly enough about to bring to corrections. There's no obligation for them to do anything—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
—so I'm not going to try to oversell, but it would be publicly available, and it would also be something that people could reference if they go back to the bill and what was reported on.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
This is in the half-a-loaf category.
Is there any other debate? Seeing none, shall PV-7 pass?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on CPC-2 in the name of Mr. Paul-Hus.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'll speak on his behalf, Mr. Chair.
This is new language that's being proposed. As you can see, it says:
(2) Despite subsection (1) and sections 29 and 30, an offender who has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of a child shall not be confined
(a) in a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary that has been assigned a minimum security classification or where the offender could have contact with children; or
(b) in a place where correctional services are provided under an agreement referred to in section 81.
Section 81 is the reference to healing lodges, as we know.
This is directed to the recent Terri-Lynne McClintic fiasco in order to not have a mistake like that made in the future.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. Before I open debate on this amendment, I'll note that my initial reaction to this was that it was beyond the scope of the bill. However, I can argue it both ways, frankly, as to whether it's beyond the scope of the bill.
You have some tangential relevance to sections further down in the bill, but I think it's actually better for the chair to rule that this is still within the scope of the bill and to open up debate here, rather than ruling it as being beyond the scope of the bill.
Is there any debate?
Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.
3:55 p.m.
Brampton North, Lib.
I'm disappointed at your ruling at this point, but I would like to speak to it, because I think it's beyond the scope of the bill.
The bill doesn't deal with identifying any specific crimes and dealing with where they're placed. This is a bill on segregation issues. I don't see how bringing up this issue, which we know the Conservatives were hotly politicizing all along, at this time and in this place is appropriate. I'm sure they could bring it up at another time and in another place, but I don't see how it fits into this bill.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I agree with your ruling. I think there's enough in there about security classifications by the commissioner.
Excuse me. I hope my voice will make it through this meeting.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I hope not. We hope we're not sharing your glasses. I think that's the issue.
The other thing I wanted to add, Chair, is that beyond the question of whether it's within the scope of the legislation, we saw the result when the news came out on the situation having changed, and it's pretty clear that the corrections that were brought to the directives following the minister's review have obviously had the result that was hoped for.
I think some of the things that are put forward here are within those directives in language that I believe is more appropriate, so I will be opposing the amendment.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
With all due respect to you, Chair, I'm going to challenge your ruling. Sorry.
I'm wondering if the legislative—
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
A challenge to the chair is a non-debatable motion, so it's up or down.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Does that go for you, as well, Mr. Eglinski?
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
The ruling of the chair is overturned; therefore, the motion is out of order.
I see that I only have friends to my left as opposed to friends to my right, so I'm looking forward to the next impeachment motion.
4 p.m.
A voice
So moved.
