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.
Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would say it's already covered in the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on NDP-9.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In this amendment we're trying to be ambitious on two fronts: applying the Mandela rules relating to the number of aggregate days in a 365-day period, and going back to Justice Arbour's recommendation for judicial review.
I didn't have time to finish debating the minister on that point, but I don't believe it's something that requires royal recommendation or I imagine I would have had a ruling from the chair on this front. I will ask for a recorded vote.
The amendment would read that Bill C-83, in clause 10, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 4 with the following:
unit is to end as soon as possible, and may never be, subject to subsection (2), for more than 15 aggregate days in a 365-day period.
(2) The Federal Court may, on request by the institution head, authorize the confinement of an inmate in a structured intervention unit for up to an additional 15 aggregate days in a 365-day period, as long as the aggregate days of confinement of the inmate in such a unit, irrespective of the penitentiary, do not exceed 60 in the 365-day period.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Briefly, I'm going to repeat what my colleague said earlier about what the minister said when he appeared before committee. I recognize it's a leap of faith to accept the oversight that would be coming at report stage, because we haven't seen it yet, but I am making that leap of faith and I am confident we can add independent oversight into it.
I appreciate what the member is trying to do here, but I won't be supporting it.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that Justice Arbour's recommendation dates back to when I was in elementary school. I'm not saying that to be glib. I'm saying that to demonstrate how long-standing this issue has been.
I think it's pretty clear from the minister's comments and his inability to provide me with an adequate response that he has already prejudged what he believes this will look like.
Both Bill C-56 and Bill C-83 have had nothing in terms of proper independent review with any kind of teeth. Moreover, I think the very fact that the government is appealing the B.C. decision has just left a bunch of bread crumbs that do not allow me, unfortunately, and with all due respect, to make the same leap of faith. I believe, from what I've heard from witnesses, what I've read and what I've heard Justice Arbour say many times over the years, that this is the way to go.
At the end of the day, I go back to what Justice Arbour articulated as the reason here: The minute you start going beyond a certain number of days without this type of review, you're actually influencing sentencing. You're changing the punishment that has been brought out by a court of law on an individual.
I understand that circumstances can change within a prison, but unfortunately, history has borne out that this has been abused and has gone against the way our system is supposed to work. I believe this is the only way we can properly correct that abuse. Having heard witness testimony, and through my own discussions with stakeholders, that's what I believe.
Unfortunately, on this file, with the dithering we've seen from the minister, both with his actions in appealing the decision through the Department of Justice and in his own testimony, I just do not have that same faith.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We move to PV-14.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In this amendment, which is somewhat similar to the one that was defeated, we're recognizing that the legislation is putting in the four-hours rule, the Mandela rule, but because of the broadness of the exceptions, it could very well be that you actually end up not getting that amount of time. You could actually have 22 hours a day in confinement under this legislation, and that would end up qualifying as solitary confinement under Mandela rules and would therefore not be acceptable.
We know that when you're dealing with prisoners who are dealing with mental health issues, any amount of confinement can be much more devastating than for inmates who don't have mental health issues. It can be psychologically harmful, as the Prisoners' Legal Services brief pointed out, “for prisoners with mental disabilities for any amount of time, and after 15 days for anyone else.”
My amendment sets out ways of ensuring that if you've been confined for 15 consecutive days, you're not allowed to be returned to confinement without an in-between period of five days, and that if you've been “confined in a structured intervention unit for more than 60 aggregate days within a 365-day period”, that will also trigger that you've had well above what would be acceptable.
They'd have to watch the aggregate in 365 days, watch the 15 consecutive days, and then also look at other, less restrictive programs to ensure that something is working that's more appropriate for the inmate.
The amendment comes from the same witnesses that I've drawn most of my amendments from, the ones who have the most experience with the prison system and are worried that this bill doesn't meet its intention of ending solitary confinement. These time limit caps would go a long way toward ensuring this legislation really did end solitary confinement.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the level of attention that the amendment places on the needs of the inmate with respect to the number of days. My point would be similar to the one I made under PV-13, which is that internally there is already a set of oversight mechanisms in place—independent internal oversight—and externally, Minister Goodale made a statement on November 27 expressing support for creating external oversight. Ultimately, this level of attention is the right level, but the protections are already in place for the inmates through the two systems I've described.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
It's consequential to what we did before in the level of the decision-making process.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I was almost deciding I had to go to private members' business, but since I have a chance, this is to emphasize the use of SIUs as a last resort rather than a front-line response. It requires written reasons for including alternative options and how they've been explored, and requires that the inmate be provided with a copy of the transfer order.
Senator Pate said there are no requirements, for example, in this bill that the commissioner state what other measures were considered and the reasons they were not considered reasonable. This would help ensure that the segregation units are actually considered only as a last resort, not a front-line response.
I'll leave you with that, and I hope that's enough to persuade you.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Does anybody else want to debate?
Those in favour of amendment PV-15, please indicate.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment LIB-3.2, we have Mr. Picard.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
This is another version.
The idea here is simply to clarify the passage:d'agir d'une manière qui mettrait en danger la sécurité
I don't know whether I should do go back over the point that's changed. The correction concerns only the French version.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any debate? No.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment PV-16, Ms. May is not here. I don't know whether anyone wants to.... It's deemed moved, but this one, because amendment LIB-3.1 passed, is therefore moot.
How do we mark “moot?” Is it withdrawn?
It's inadmissible. Okay.
Moving on, we have amendment LIB-4 and Ms. Dabrusin.
