Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[Ruby Sahota, Brampton North, Lib.]

Chair, I'd like to move a subamendment to the amendment, because I think there's still something missing to make it more inclusive. That is to add after “gender, ethnic, cultural” the word “religious” before “and linguistic differences”. Then also further down remove the “or” and add “and” to make it more consistent with the human rights code that we're referring to, because I believe it's usually stated as “gender identity and expression” not “or expression”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Then it reads “gender, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic differences, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sorry?

[Ruby Sahota]

I think we remove that “and” and put a comma.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Oh, sorry; it's “gender identity and expression”.

[Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, I see.

There's a subamendment on the floor.

(Subamendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair:

Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

Oh, sorry; I missed CPC-1. Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's clear from conversations with MP Harold Albrecht and testimony from the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa that inmates don't have access to satisfactory programs to prepare them for today's labour market once they're released. Inmates are frustrated that the waiting list for programs and services is such that offenders serving long sentences can access those programs before those who are serving short sentences or are granted early release.

In a perfect world, all individuals would have access to the programs they need, but we know that's not the case. Consequently, we must give priority to preparing those who are released into society. That's why we're moving this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate on Mr. Paul-Hus' motion?

Go ahead, Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The mental health-based risk assessment, for example, shouldn't be conducted based on a date, but rather on the status and needs of the individual. For that reason, I'm going to oppose the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

Hearing none, those in favour of CPC-1?

Those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 3)

We're now on clause 3.

Ms. Dabrusin has LIB-1.1.

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

This makes a consequential amendment to clause 3 to make it more consistent with an amendment that I will be proposing later on as well with respect to mental health care review. It just cleans up the wording, so we should support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You'll take note that it's consequential to LIB-2.2 on page 14.1 of the package. This vote will apply to both amendments.

Is there any debate on the amendment as proposed?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on to LIB-2.

Go ahead, Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The idea here is to harmonize the English and French versions. The French version refers to the "unité d'intervention structurée". However, that concept is rendered in English by a single word, "unit". The idea here is therefore to state structured intervention unit in the English version, thus harmonizing the text as a whole by specifying the type of unit concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on PV-2.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On page 2, the second line of the bill deals with the situation of an offender being placed in a structured intervention unit. The decision is made, the way the bill currently reads, such that the offender's plan should

be updated, in consultation with the offender,

My amendment would have the effect of allowing the update to include other individuals involved in administering the programs and services to assist a prisoner. My amendment stems from some of the testimony from the minister, who said that it “depends on the individual, of course”, but the point is that if we don't make appropriate efforts at treatment, rehabilitation, and ultimately reintegration, people will come out of correctional facilities no better, or perhaps worse, than when they went in.

The goal of my amendment is to ensure a more collaborative team approach within that system. If the offender is in a structured intervention unit and if there has been a change in the plan, you consult with the prisoner, but you also consult with those other individuals who are involved in administering the programs so that they have updates on the prisoner's correctional plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

While I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, I believe this is what is already happening now, with further investments being made in corrections to allow even more to be done in the SIUs. Already the parole officer and the primary workers would be involved in it, so I don't think it's necessary to add this to the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

Ms. May.

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

When we look at the process as it's laid out here, including in proposed sections 37.3 and 37.4, we can make the assumption, I suppose. There is no question that the minister is ramping up and better funding the treatment programs and so on, but it doesn't appear that all of the individuals who would be part of those programs would be updated on the plan. It might be implied, but I don't see any harm in making it explicit that everyone who is involved in those treatment decisions, everyone who is administering the programs and services employed in that Correctional Service relating to that prisoner, is also updated.

Pam, in the day-to-day course, one would hope that everybody would be involved and updated, but my amendment seeks to ensure that everybody is.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If my colleague is right in her assertion that this will aid in the rehabilitation of prisoners, I would ask the officials to weigh in to determine whether this additional language would achieve that purpose.

[Luc Bisson, Director, Strategic Policy, Correctional Service of Canada]

In fact, to answer your question, the correctional plan for offenders would be updated under current practice with the concurrence of the entire case management team. That would include the parole officer or the primary worker dealing with that offender and also such other intervenors as health professionals, elders in the case of aboriginal offenders, and chaplains in other cases. It already is inclusive of other intervenors.

In reading the language, maybe a sub-question would be about the intent. Is it the intent that case management be involved, or is it really every single individual involved in the administration? At first look, that may involve dozens, or many, many people, which would essentially make it very hard to ensure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz, is that fine?

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

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate on PV-2?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On PV-3, go ahead, Ms. May.