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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. Let's keep this Christmas spirit going.
We'll go to Ms. Dabrusin on LIB-3.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What really stood out for me when I was reading the cases from Ontario and B.C. was all the stories of people only having contact through the meal hatch. This was an important factor for the judge in both cases, and certainly in the B.C. case. I saw that the Ontario legislation never received royal assent, but it did go through three readings and had a section that dealt with the fact that contact couldn't be through a meal hatch, except if there were security reasons or other valid reasons. In that case, however, you would have to provide a reason.
It seems inherently reasonable to me that we presume that you do not have contact just through a meal hatch, but that if for some reason that wasn't possible, you would have to provide reasons so that there's an explanation people could verify.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Julie, I understand the logic behind this; it makes sense. I'm trying to limit the amount of record-keeping—and the officials can certainly weigh in on this—because there are a lot of interactions that happen in a penitentiary. You're walking by, and they ask a question or they need a lighter. It's whatever it might be that happens through that. Every time you do that, do you have to make a record of that? It seems to me it flies in the face of what you're trying to say. What you're trying to say is that the meal hatch is not your meaningful human contact.
If that's what you're trying to say, then maybe we need to change the language and not be restrictive on correctional services so that every time they have contact that way, even though it may not be part of that meaningful human contact and may be for some other minor purpose, they don't have to keep a record of it. It would be very cumbersome to do it that way.
What you're asking for makes sense, as long as “I need my smoke lit” doesn't mean they have to write it out, or whatever it is.
Yes, I shouldn't smoke, and that's a problem.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I would like to clarify that this amendment I'm moving only applies to proposed paragraph 32(b). It isn't that every interaction cannot be through the meal hatch, but that the—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
A second subsection would be added to section 32. I'd just like to ensure that we are very cautious. Even if we change the terms, a structured intervention unit is still a place where inmates are subjected to a form of segregation. From what I understand, this would be different, but the fact remains that it would be a sector where the most dangerous inmates are subjected to segregation, although some individuals might ask to be sent there as well. There are conditions, but I wonder whether we should define them more clearly. We can't simply say that human contact must automatically be permitted in the structured intervention units. Some individuals must be deprived of that, and that's why they're confined in segregation.
Are the terms used to define the conditions clear enough? Can our friends at the end of the table confirm for me that the idea behind establishing a structured intervention unit is for it to serve as a place of segregation, in various forms as cases require? If we want to afford these people human contact other than that provided through the meal hatch, I understand the idea. However, despite what's being proposed here, I believe some inmates can't be put in contact with others, even if they're in chains.
Is it clear that the conditions prevent that, that they prevent us from being required under the act to afford certain individuals human contact? A prisoner could claim he's entitled to human contact under the new act. The worst of them might invoke the act. Wouldn't that be a problem? Do you understand what I mean?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes. Thank you. I do understand.
I think it's important to note that this amendment proposes that “every reasonable effort” will be made. It's not a requirement. The purpose of a structured intervention unit, as its name says, is to have interventions to address the root cause of the safety risk that put that person there. Not every person going there is a huge safety risk. Some are there because they feel safer. Some are there because there are investigations under way.
Because of the intent of a structured intervention unit, I think it's very reasonable to think that every reasonable effort would be made to ensure that those interventions were without barriers. The intent is strong enough that you would want to take note of those situations in which they were not able to do it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Can wardens still use their discretionary authority to prevent inmates from invoking the act, from saying they have a right and so on?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Security assessments are done, and wardens retain control of the situation, don't they?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is everybody clear?
All those in favour of LIB-3, please signify.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on to PV-13.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
4:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is based on a lot of evidence, particularly from Dr. Zinger. It restores certain procedural rights for the inmate. It really will work better in a situation where the offender has been designated by an independent or outside reviewer.
In order to ensure procedural rights, I'm replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 4 with something much longer. I could read these out, but I think I'll just summarize them as procedural rights for the inmate.
November 29th, 2018 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This basically sets out an internal review scheme in some detail, requiring hearings at essentially every decision point relating to maintaining or not maintaining an inmate in SIU. To that effect, the bill already includes multiple oversight mechanisms, including independent internal decision-making throughout the placement. In my submission, it's not something that's required; it's already there.
In addition, the minister, when he appeared at the committee on November 27, expressed support for creating an independent external review mechanism for individuals in SIU who do not take part in programming.
Therefore there are protections, in my submission. I understand the aspiration of this set of hearings, but these changes are not required. It's overly onerous in light of the requirements that are already there.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate on PV-13?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on NDP-8.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of this amendment is to specify that this tool must be used only as a last resort. It states that this measure, the confinement of inmates in this unit, should be applied only "if there is no reasonable alternative... and is to end as soon as possible."
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm wondering if the officials could comment, because I think this is somewhat redundant. The bill already refers to decision-makers at CSC needing to be satisfied that there are no reasonable alternatives. I'm wondering if you think this is necessary, or if it's already covered in the bill.