Evidence of meeting #34 for Public Safety and National Security in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you.
I'm wondering how much better the situation might have been had some detention centres not been in such disrepair. I'm referring to confinement, the spread of COVID‑19 and the violation of solicitor-client privilege. Having practised some prison law, I have been to a few centres, and they were extremely dilapidated.
Would problems have been avoided had federal correctional facilities been given a little more TLC?
7:05 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think a lot of things could have been improved if there had been goodwill and more of a creative way to approach these things. I mean, you can see this. I talked to a lot of prisoners during this period, and they kept asking, “Why are you putting the prisoners who are ill in the hole?" That's the former segregation, which is a very untherapeutic environment. At that point, nobody was using the trailers, which make quite nice accommodation for personal family visits. Why not put the sick people in there, where they would be away from the rest and isolated? They could get the treatment they needed without infecting others.
We found throughout that there was a real problem with isolating those who were testing positive for COVID-19 from those who weren't. I think that's why you saw the huge spread, the quick spread, of COVID in those institutions where it took root. There were also fairly inexplicable things like six or seven prisoners from the reception unit at Joyceville who were transferred to other institutions in the Ontario region. They all tested positive. Why they were transferred, I don't know.
7:05 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Oh, I have a lot more, but that's okay.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sure you do—we all do—and that's tantalizing.
Thank you, Madam Normandin.
Mr. Harris, this is your final four minutes.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
To the witnesses, I want to thank you for coming forward, for your patience and for your dedicated work over the years on these issues.
It's very difficult to spend four minutes asking any questions that can deal with this situation, which has been called a crisis, lawless, tragic and state-sponsored torture, with sexual coercion and violence in the prisons going unrecognized and unhelped. Is it possible to fix this? We've had the Supreme Court of Canada. We've had changes in legislation. We've had your work. Still we don't see any improvement. What is the hope for this? Do we need to have a judicial inquiry?
If I could have a quick yes or no on that from the witnesses, I'd like to hear that, but I'd also like to move my motion, which will take up all of my time, to continue this study next week. When we're talking about state-sponsored torture on an ongoing basis, when we're talking about the kind of treatment we are hearing about of prisoners who are suffering from mental health issues, who are not being properly looked after, with ongoing solitary confinement, we need to continue this study. That's extremely important.
Dr. Doob, can we have a quick answer on whether a judicial inquiry is required to do this?
7:05 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm not sure what would be the best way to deal with this problem. It would seem to me that one of our first problems is that CSC is not addressing any of these issues.
7:05 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, As an Individual
One of the things our report shows over and over again is a huge variability across the country. Some places are much worse than others. Why can't we learn from those experiences?
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
But who can fix it? They're not learning, from what you say, and they're not even relating properly to you. I guess we have to find that out: How do we fix it?
7:05 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, As an Individual
My own feeling is that part of what is necessary but not sufficient is a decent form of independent overview of what's going on. We don't have that. That would be a starting point.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
I guess the time will run out, Chair, if we ask all the other witnesses to respond to that.
I would like to have a vote on my motion, if that's possible.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'd be happy to facilitate that in the last two minutes that we have.
Witnesses, thank you again for your patience. Certainly, what you have said to the committee is extremely disturbing and worthy of further inquiry on the part of this committee.
We'll release you, apologizing again for just the way things are. Ain't democracy grand?
7:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Thank you very much.
June 9th, 2021 / 7:05 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Thank you for the time.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
With that, Mr. Harris has moved his motion. Essentially, we have agreed that next week, one will be dedicated to the motion we debated for the last hour. The second time together, we basically have a choice between the Levesque study, continuing with the CSC study, or a border study. That's what it boils down to. I'm open to....
Well, I'm not that open. It's 7:10 p.m. The whip's office is going to get excited.
I see Mr. Lightbound and then Mr. Fisher.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
I will keep it short, Mr. Chair.
I, too, am disappointed that we had so little time with such exceptional witnesses. Their input is extremely relevant.
I do, however, want to make a point. When we had agreed on how many meetings to assign to the various studies, Kristina Michaud, who is currently tied up with another committee, really wanted a meeting on the border issue. That meeting was supposed to happen next week.
Given the commitment we made to Kristina Michaud, of the Bloc Québécois, I can't really support Mr. Harris's motion.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to say what Joël said. I thought we had sort of agreed, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, that we would do the border.
Also, Mr. Chair, Mr. Harris moved his motion really, really quickly. I'm looking to see if it came by email. I don't know whether he has to submit in English and French when he's doing it from the floor. Perhaps he doesn't have to. I know that Madam Normandin would probably appreciate seeing it in French, especially if it's going to replace something that this committee agreed to, as a request by the Bloc.
I'm not certain I have a lot of interest in supporting this unless we have time to actually discuss it.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
I will have to adjourn, at this point, without resolution of this motion.
At this point, I know that the clerk has instructions to invite two witnesses to continue the IMVE study for 90 minutes, plus 30 minutes to decide what it is we want to do. That will occupy either the Monday or the Wednesday. If there's no other resolution, if it's on the Monday, that would bump the border study. If it's on the Wednesday, it would bump the Levesque study.
That's kind of where we're at, unless you can collectively tell me something different.
With that, I regrettably have to adjourn the meeting. It's very frustrating, folks.
Thank you.