Public Safety committee  Maybe we could have a clarification here. We're talking about patient advocacy services, and as I understood your presentation, you were referring to health services. Those would be two distinct issues. We are seeking to provide patient advocacy services where the commissioner d

Public Safety committee  This would be further prescribed as is laid out in the bill. There are a number of technologies available. We're looking at something similar to what is used in airports. It would essentially identify a problematic area and suggest a secondary review at the threat risk assessme

Public Safety committee  Essentially, strip searches are currently available under the act. My understanding is that under Bill C-83, they would continue to be available. To reiterate, the concern is about what this would mean if there are medical conditions, or if the body scanner is at the front entra

Public Safety committee  What I was answering was the question around whether “reasonable” would be required to factor in exceptions, and my comment was that exceptions are already factored in in the bill.

Public Safety committee  The time does add more clarity in terms of when these opportunities need to be offered, so it is consistent with the intent.

Public Safety committee  The bill already provides for the hours during which inmates may spend time outside their cells, between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. That can work. The bill already provides for exceptions in the case of “force majeure” and events beyond our control. That would then be set down in writin

Public Safety committee  I'm going to repeat what's already been said on this subject. The addition of the word “reasonable” provides a factor that must be assessed in deciding whether to grant the opportunity to leave the cell. I think the intention stated in the bill is clear enough.

Public Safety committee  To answer your question, essentially the amendment would be consistent up to the point where there is this timeline for notification. That does not exist in a regulation currently.

Public Safety committee  I think I heard your question well. Essentially, there are criteria. There are standards established for various levels of security. Therefore, it's not just a matter of changing the label or the identification of the unit or the institution. There are security measures in plac

Public Safety committee  Yes, it's common practice to the extent that correctional services may have what are classified as multi-level security units or institutions. If I'm correctly interpreting what's being proposed here, inmates who didn't have a medium- or maximum-security classification couldn't

Public Safety committee  Maybe I can give you an example. We have regional treatment centres that we would classify as multi-level security institutions. They therefore manage offenders with various classification levels. What would change are the safety protocols around the movement of the inmate and th

Public Safety committee  This is already part of our practices and policies. We work with inmates to develop their plans, and we monitor their progress. That's already the case.

Public Safety committee  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 interv