SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
ORDERED, — That the Chair report Votes 1a and 5a under Canada Border Services Agency, Vote 1a under Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Vote 1a under Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vote 1a under Correctional Service of Canada, Votes 1a and 5a under Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Vote 1a under Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Vote 1a under Parole Board of Canada, Votes 1a, 5a and 10a under Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vote 1a under Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, Vote 1a under Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and Vote 1a under Security Intelligence Review Committee to the House.
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Angela Arnet Connidis, Luc Bisson and Juline Fresco answered questions.
The Chair called Clause 1.
Clause 1 carried on division.
On Clause 2,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:“2 (1) Paragraph 4(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the Service uses the least invasive and restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders;
(2) Paragraph 4(g) of the Act is replaced by the fol-”
Pam Damoff moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “invasive and ”
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
“spect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and are responsive to the special needs of women, Indigenous persons, visible minorities, persons requiring mental health”
Ruby Sahota moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, after the word “religous”, the word “cultural” and by replacing the word “or” with the word “and”
The question was put on the subamendment of Ruby Sahota and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(g.1) correctional policies, programs and practices provide, regardless of gender, access to activities and to training for future employment but provide inmates who are soon to be released with priority access to the activities that prepare them for release, including counselling and help with mental health issues;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Clause 2, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
On Clause 3,
Julie Dabrusin moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 1 with the following:“and a determination is made under subsection 29.01(2), paragraph 37.3(1)(b) or section 37.4 that the offender should remain in”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also adopted:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 3 the following :“29.01 (1) A staff member who holds a position lower in rank than that of institutional head and who is designated by the Commissioner may, in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(g), and subject to section 28, authorize the transfer of a person who is sentenced, transferred or committed to a penitentiary into a structured intervention unit in the penitentiary or in another penitentiary.
(2) The institutional head shall determine, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g), whether an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit within the period of five working days that begins on the first working day on which the inmate is confined in the unit.”
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 1 with the following:
“the structured intervention unit, the institutional head shall, as soon as practica-”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 4 on page 2 with the following:
“confinement in the structured intervention unit and to prepare them for reinte-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:
“offender and with the individuals involved in administering programs and services who are employed or engaged by the Service, in order to ensure that the offender receives the most ef-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 2 with the following:
“gration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 2 the following:
“(2.2) The offender under subsection (2.1) whose correctional plan is to be updated shall be given an opportunity to make written representations to the institutional head before any decisions on program selection are made.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 3, as amended, carried.
Clause 4 carried on division.
On Clause 5,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 2 the following:
“(1.1) In cases where the registered health care professional has reasonable grounds to believe that the death of the inmate is due to a chronic illness, the registered health care professional shall include in his or her report recommendations as to what lifestyle changes or habits could have helped manage the illness and to what extent the inmate's confinement may have negatively affected his or her illness.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 5 carried on division.
On Clause 6,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 2 with the following:
“6 (1) The portion of section 28 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
28 If a person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment for that person, taking into account
(2) Paragraph 28(c) of the French version of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 3 the following:
“(2) Section 28 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 28(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) If a woman or an Indigenous person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall give priority to taking into account the accessibility considerations under paragraph (1)(b).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(2) Section 28 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 28(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) Despite subsection (1) and sections 29 and 30, an offender who has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of a child shall not be confined
(a) in a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary that has been assigned a minimum security classification or where the offender could have contact with children; or
(b) in a place where correctional services are provided under an agreement referred to in section 81.”
Debate arose thereon.
A point of order was raised by Pam Damoff regarding the admissibility of the proposed amendement.
Whereupon, Pam Damoff appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
The proposed amendment is therefore inadmissible.
Clause 6, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 7,
Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 7, be amended by(a) replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 3 with the following:
“(b) to another penitentiary, in accordance with the”
(b) replacing line 22 on page 3 with the following:
“(c) to a provincial correctional facility or hospital, in”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 3 the following:
“(2) A transfer authorized under subsection (1) is subject to the following conditions:
(a) in the case of an inmate with health issues, to ensure continuity of care, his or her medical file must also be transferred;
(b) in the case of a female inmate with mental issues or disorders or self-harming behaviour, the transfer should only occur when it is safe to do so for health reasons;
(c) in the case of a female inmate transferred to a medical institution or treatment facility, the transfer should only occur when it has been approved by a registered health care professional and once a written plan is in place to re-integrate the inmate into her penitentiary following treatment; and
(d) in the case of a female inmate transferred to a penitentiary located away from her home, the transfer may be accompanied by the following measures:
(i) the inmate is allowed longer visits with the family members or support persons of their choice,
(ii) the inmate's means of access to family or support persons is increased; and
(iii) the inmate's family or support persons are provided with appropriate means of access when they are unable to visit the inmate due to financial reasons.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“(2) A person who is sentenced, transferred or committed to a penitentiary may only be transferred to a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary that has been assigned a security classification that corresponds to the security classification assigned to the person.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Clause 7, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 8,
Glen Motz moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 3 with the following:“any area in a penitentiary by taking into account the physical limitations and staffing needs of the penitentiary as well as the services it offers.
(2) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a change to a security classification in writing and notify the Minister of the proposed change at least 15 days before the change takes effect.?”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(2) If the Commissioner plans to assign a new security classification to a penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary, he or she must undertake consultations with nearby communities, staff members and any other impacted stakeholder identified by the Service.
(3) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a new security classification in writing, publish it on the departmental website at least 15 days before the change takes effect and notify the Minister of the change.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé, Jim Eglinski, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 4;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michel Picard, Ruby Sahota, Sven Spengemann — 5.
Clause 8 carried on division.
Clause 9 carried on division.
On Clause 10,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 4 the following:“(2) Any area of a penitentiary where an inmate is segregated from the mainstream inmate population and is required to spend less time outside the inmate's cell or engaging in activities than an inmate confined in the mainstream inmate population shall be designated as a structured intervention unit.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
(a) by adding after line 9 on page 4 the following:
“(2) No structured intervention unit is to be designated in a penitentiary for women or any area in a penitentiary for women.”
(b) by adding after line 20 on page 4 the following:
33.1 An inmate who is suffering from a serious mobility impairment or a serious mental illness or disorder causing significant impairment or who is in need of palliative care is not to be confined in a structured intervention unit.”
(c) by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 6 with the following:
“mend to the institutional head that the inmate not remain in the structured intervention unit.”
(d) by adding after line 20 on page 6 the following:
“(2) Upon receipt of a recommendation under subsection (1), the institutional head shall take measures to have the inmate removed from the unit.”
(e) by deleting lines 27 to 29 on page 6.
(f) by deleting lines 24 to 29 on page 7.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé, Jim Eglinski, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 4;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michel Picard, Ruby Sahota, Sven Spengemann — 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended
(a) by replacing line 11 on page 4 with the following:
“(a) provide the least restrictive living environment for an”
(b) by adding after line 13 on page 4 the following:
“(a.1) provide a living environment for an inmate with the lowest level of security required to ensure public safety; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(a) provide, only as a measure of last resort, an appropriate living environment for an”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 4 with the following:
“inmate population for security reasons; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“inmate population for security reasons other than the lack of staff members or cells in the penitentiary; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 4 with the following:
“(b) provide the inmate with a reasonable opportunity for meaningful human contact and a reasonable opportunity to partici-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 4 the following:
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), meaningful human contact means the amount and quality of social interaction and psychological stimulation that human beings require for their mental health and well-being and includes the following:
(a) normal and direct human contact that is not mediated or interposed by physical barriers such as bars, restraints, security glass, door hatches or screens;
(b) contact that is sustained and intentional and not limited to interactions determined by penitentiary routines, the course of criminal investigations or medical necessity; and
(c) genuine social interaction and engagement with others fostered by programs and purposeful activities of common interest or consequence.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that the opportunity to interact through human contact is not mediated or interposed by physical barriers such as bars, security glass, door hatches or screens.
(3) The Service shall maintain a record of every instance of an interaction referred to in paragraph (1)(b) that is mediated or interposed by such physical barriers.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 4 with the following:
“33 (1) When an inmate is confined in a structured intervention unit, the institutional head shall
(a) conduct, at the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, a hearing to review the inmate’s case;
(b) conduct, at prescribed times and in the prescribed manner, further regular hearings to review the inmate’s case; and
(c) recommend to the Commissioner, after the hearing mentioned in paragraph (a) and after each hearing mentioned in paragraph (b), whether or not the inmate should be released from the structured intervention unit.
(2) A hearing mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) shall be conducted with the inmate present unless
(a) the inmate is voluntarily absent;
(b) the institutional head believes on reasonable grounds that the inmate’s presence would jeopardize the safety of any person present at the hearing; or
(c) the inmate seriously disrupts the hearing.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
“unit should only occur if there is no reasonable alternative to the inmate’s confinement in a structured intervention unit and is to end as soon as possible.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“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.”
The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé — 1;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Jim Eglinski, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus, Michel Picard, Ruby Sahota, Sven Spengemann — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
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 last no more than 15 consecutive days.
(2) When an inmate is removed from a structured intervention unit after being confined for 15 consecutive days, the institutional head shall not return the inmate to a structured intervention unit unless at least five days separate the end of the previous period of confinement from the beginning of the new one.
(3) The institutional head shall ensure that no inmate is confined in a structured intervention unit for more than 60 aggregate days within a 365-day period.
(4) Despite subsection (3), an inmate may be confined in a structured intervention unit for more than 60 aggregate days within a 365-day period if
(a) the institutional head determines that no other less restrictive measures or programs outside the penitentiary are appropriate for the inmate; and
(b) the Commissioner has authorized the institutional head to confine the inmate for a period that exceeds 60 aggregate days within a 365-day period.
(5) A determination that the inmate is to be confined for more than 60 aggregate days within a 365-day period is subject to judicial review under the Federal Courts Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“34 A staff member may authorize the transfer of an inmate into a structured intervention unit under subsection 29.01(1) only if the staff member is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative to the inmate’s confinement in a structured intervention unit and the staff member be-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 2.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended (a) by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 4 with the following:
“29 only if the Commissioner is satisfied that the inmate's confinement in a structured intervention unit is a last resort and that all alternative options including a transfer to a treatment facility or a release to an authorized community-based residential facility have been exhausted, and the Commissioner be-”
(b) by adding after line 4 on page 5 the following:
“34.1 The Commissioner shall give the inmate reasons, in writing, for authorizing the transfer to a structured intervention unit, including the alternative options that were considered, and provide the inmate with a copy of the reasons on request.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“d’agir d’une manière qui mettrait en danger la sécurité d’une”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 5 the following:
“34.1 (1) Within 24 hours following the authorized transfer by the Commissioner under section 34, the Service must conduct an assessment of the inmate's needs and develop an intervention plan, in consultation with individuals involved in administering programs and services who are employed or engaged by the Service, that supports the inmate's reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.
(2) The inmate shall be given an opportunity to make written representations to the Service on the interventions in which he or she would like to participate.
(3) A copy of the intervention plan must be provided to the inmate.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was inconsistent with a decision taken by the Committee on a previous amendment, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“(2) The Service shall maintain a record of every instance in which an inmate is transferred into a structured intervention unit indicating the reasons for the transfer and any alternative considered in the making of the decision.
(3) No later than one working day after the transfer, the Service shall provide the inmate, in writing, with the reasons for the decision.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 5 with the following:
“same rights and conditions of confinement as other inmates, except for those that can-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“36 (1) The Service shall, every day, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., provide an inmate in a structured intervention unit
(a) an opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours outside the inmate’s cell; and
(b) an opportunity to interact, for a minimum of two hours, with others, through activities including,”
Matthew Dubé moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “an” with the words “a reasonable”
The question was put on the subamendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 5 with the following:
“mate population and that are adapted to impose the least restrictive conditions on the inmate, taking into consideration the need to ensure the security of the penitentiary and the safety of persons, and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(1.1) The opportunity referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b)
(a) shall be reasonable;
(b) shall, to the extent possible, take into consideration the offender’s choice of activities; and
(c) shall not be a form of punishment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(1.1) The institutional head may, after consultation with qualified persons, develop alternative means to fulfill the obligation referred to in subsection (1) if those means mitigate the impact of confinement in a structured intervention unit on the mental health of inmates while improving the safety of persons or the security of the penitentiary.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:31 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:43 p.m., the sitting resumed.
“(1.1) The institutional head may, after consultation with qualified persons, develop alternative means to fulfill the obligation referred to in subsection (1) if those means mitigate the impact of confinement in a structured intervention unit on the mental health of inmates while improving the safety of persons or the security of the penitentiary.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
(a) by adding after line 27 on page 5 the following:
“(4) The Service shall ensure that measures are taken to increase the time referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). ”
(b) by replacing line 4 on page 6 with the following:
“(2) The Service shall maintain a record of any time period, in excess of the minimum provided for in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and (b), that is provided to the inmate and of every instance”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Daniel Blaikie and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“(c) in the prescribed circumstances, which circumstances may include, among other things, natural disasters, fires, riots and work refusals under section 128 of the Canada Labour Code, and those cir-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“that an inmate has been offered an opportunity referred to in paragraph 36(1)(a) or (b) that the inmate refused, indicating the specific opportunity and any reason given for the refusal, or has”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Daniel Blaikie and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 15 on page 6 with the following:
“(2) A registered health care professional shall visit the inmate at least once every day and the visit shall provide the inmate with an opportunity for continuity of care.
(3) In order to ensure continuity of care under subsection (2), the daily visit should be made by the same registered health care professional or by members of the team of health care professionals involved in the inmate's care.
(4) The institutional head shall visit the structured intervention unit at least once every day.
(5) The inmate may request a visit from the institutional head. A record of such a request must be kept.
(6) A visit for the purposes of this section does not include communication through a door hatch, unless there is a safety or security concern that cannot be addressed in any other manner.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 6 the following:
“(3) The inmate may, for health reasons, request an immediate visit from a registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service. A record of such a request must be kept.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“37.11 A staff member may recommend to a registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service that the professional assess the mental health of an inmate, if the inmate
(a) refuses to interact with others for a prescribed period;
(b) exhibits a tendency to self-harm;
(c) is showing signs of an adverse drug reaction; or
(d) is showing signs of emotional distress or exhibiting behaviour that suggests that the inmate is in urgent need of mental health care.”
Debate arose thereon.
Pam Damoff moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “a staff member” the following:
“or a person engaged by the service”
The question was put on the subamendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 20 on page 6 with the following:
“37.2 A registered health care practitioner who visits an inmate confined in a structured intervention unit
(a) shall be enabled to provide any necessary treatment the inmate requires to maintain his or her health;
(b) shall review and report to the institutional head without delay if, in their opinion, there is evidence of a heightened risk of adverse effects on the inmate’s mental or physical health as a result of the continuance of confinement in the structured intervention unit; and
(c) may recommend to the institutional head that the conditions of confinement in the structured intervention unit be altered, or that the inmate be returned to the mainstream inmate population or transferred to a treatment facility, to minimize any adverse effects on the inmate’s mental or physical health.
37.21 (1) The registered health care professional shall, within five days after the day on which they conduct their review under paragraph 37.2(b), provide the institutional head with a written recommendation, supported by reasons, as to whether or not the inmate should be removed from the structured intervention unit.
(2) If the institutional head receives a recommendation that an inmate who is confined in a structured intervention unit should be removed from the unit, the institutional head shall remove the inmate from the unit and return the inmate to the mainstream inmate population or transfer him or her to a treatment facility.
(3) If the institutional head receives a recommendation that the conditions of confinement of an inmate in the structured intervention unit should be altered, the institutional head shall take measures to alter the conditions.
(4) If the institutional head does not follow a recommendation made under subsection (1), he or she shall explain his or her reasons in writing to the registered health care professional and to the inmate.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 6 the following:
“(2) The following inmates may not be confined in a structured intervention unit:
(a) an inmate who is pregnant or who recently gave birth;
(b) an inmate who is chronically self-harming or suicidal;
(c) an inmate who has a diagnosed mental illness or disorder;
(d) an inmate who requires medical observation; and
(e) an inmate who has a mobility impairment such that the living environment of a structured intervention unit would not be appropriate.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
(a) replacing lines 21 to 27 on page 6 with the following:
“37.3 (1) The institutional head shall determine, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g), whether an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit
(a) as soon as practicable after a registered health care”
(b) replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 6 with the following:
“(b) within the period that begins on the day on which the determination under subsection 29.01(2) is made and”
(c) replacing line 35 on page 6 with the following:
“(c) as soon as practicable, if the inmate has refused to”
(d) replacing line 3 on page 7 with the following:
“(d) as soon as practicable in any of the prescribed cir-”
The question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
(a) by adding after line 4 on page 7 the following:
“(1.1) Before making the determination, the institutional head shall visit the inmate.
(1.2) The institutional head shall maintain a record indicating the circumstances surrounding every instance in which, because of security requirements, a visit was not face to face or took place through a door hatch.”
(b) by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“(5) No later than 24 hours after the visit, the institutional head shall provide the inmate, in writing, with the reasons for the decision.”
Debate arose thereon.
Pam Damoff moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “24 hours” with the words “one working day”
The question was put on the subamendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(2) As soon as practicable after the registered health care”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
“37.31 (1) If the institutional head determines under paragraph 37.3(1)(a) that an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit or the institutional head determines under subsection 37.3(2) that an inmate’s conditions of confinement in the structured intervention unit should not be altered in accordance with the recommendations of a registered health care professional, another registered health care professional shall, as soon as practicable, review the inmate’s case and may, for health reasons, recommend to the committee established under subsection (3) that the inmate’s conditions of confinement in the unit be altered or that the inmate not remain in the unit.
(2) The registered health care professional conducting the review must be a senior registered health care professional employed by the Service or a registered health care professional engaged by the Service as an expert advisor.
(3) The Commissioner shall establish a committee consisting of staff members who hold a position higher in rank than that of institutional head for the purpose of reviewing recommendations made under subsection (1) and making determinations under section 37.32.
37.32 (1) As soon as practicable after a registered health care professional recommends under subsection 37.31(1), for health reasons, that an inmate’s conditions of confinement in a structured intervention unit be altered, the committee established under subsection 37.31(3) shall, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g), determine whether the inmate’s conditions of confinement in the unit should be altered.
(2) As soon as practicable after a registered health care professional recommends under subsection 37.31(1), for health reasons, that an inmate should not remain in a structured intervention unit, the committee established under subsection 37.31(3) shall, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g), determine whether the inmate should remain in the unit.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended
(a) by replacing line 30 on page 7 with the following:
“37.4 Fifteen days after the institutional head's determi-”
(b) by replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:
“stances and every 15 days after the Commissioner's last”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“nation under paragraph 37.3(1)(b) that an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit, the Commissioner shall, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g), determine whether the inmate should remain in the unit. The Commissioner shall also make such a determination in the prescribed circumstances and every 30 days after the Commissioner’s last determination under this section that the inmate should remain in the unit.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 7 the following:
“(2) A determination of the Commissioner that an inmate is to be confined for more than 60 aggregate days within a 365-day period is subject to judicial review under the Federal Courts Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“37.41 (1) The institutional head, the Commissioner or the committee established under subsection 37.31(3) may determine that an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit only if they believe on reasonable grounds that allowing the inmate’s reintegration into the mainstream inmate population
(a) would jeopardize the safety of the inmate or any other person or the security of the penitentiary; or
(b) would interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge under subsection 41(2) of a serious disciplinary offence.
(2) In making the determination, the institutional head, the Commissioner or the committee, as the case may be, shall take into account
(a) the inmate’s correctional plan;
(b) the appropriateness of the inmate’s confinement in the penitentiary;
(c) the appropriateness of the inmate’s security classification; and
(d) any other consideration that he or she considers relevant.”
The question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 8 with the following:
“meet with the inmate, and a record of this visit must be signed by the inmate.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
Clause 10, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 11 carried on division.
Clause 12 carried on division.
Clause 13 carried on division.
Clause 14 carried on division.
On Clause 15,
Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 15, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 9 the following:“48.2 No routine strip search of an inmate may be conducted if a body scan search is available.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 15 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 16 to 22 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 23,
Glen Motz moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 23, be amended(a) by adding after line 5 on page 11 the following:
“Indigenous community means any organization, community, band, tribal council, nation or other group with a predominantly Indigenous leadership of First Nation — status, non-status, on or off-reserve — Métis or Inuit. (collectivité autochtone)”
(b) by adding after line 14 on page 11 the following:
“predominantly Indigenous leadership means a situation where the majority of a group’s board of directors are First Nation — status, non-status, on or off-reserve — Métis or Inuit, and where the group
(a) demonstrates expertise and program delivery that is grounded in Indigenous laws and customs; and
(b) advocates for culturally appropriate, community-based alternatives to penitentiaries.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
(a) by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 11 with the following:
“Indigenous community means an organization, a community, a band, a tribal council, a nation or any other group with a predominantly Indigenous leadership. (collectivité autochtone)”
(b) by adding after line 14 on page 11 the following:
“predominantly Indigenous leadership in relation to a group, means a group — the majority of whose board of directors are First Nation or non-status First Nation, whether residing on reserve land or not, Métis or Inuit — that advocates for culturally appropriate and community-based alternatives to confinement for Indigenous inmates. (direction à prédominance autochtone)”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:20 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:28 p.m., the sitting resumed.
(a) by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 11 with the following:
“Indigenous community means an organization, a community, a band, a tribal council, a nation or any other group with a predominantly Indigenous leadership. (collectivité autochtone)”
(b) by adding after line 14 on page 11 the following:
“predominantly Indigenous leadership in relation to a group, means a group — the majority of whose board of directors are First Nation or non-status First Nation, whether residing on reserve land or not, Métis or Inuit — that advocates for culturally appropriate and community-based alternatives to confinement for Indigenous inmates. (direction à prédominance autochtone)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Rachel Blaney, Jim Eglinski, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 4;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michel Picard, Raj Saini, Sven Spengemann — 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 23, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 10 on page 11.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“Indigenous organization means an organization with predominately Indigenous leadership. (organisme autochtone)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Rachel Blaney, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Jim Eglinski, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus, Michel Picard, Raj Saini, Sven Spengemann — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
“79.1 In recognition of the systemic discrimination Indigenous offenders face in the correctional system and the Service’s obligation to advance equality in correctional outcomes for Indigenous offenders, the Service shall, when assessing an Indigenous offender’s needs in order to make a decision under this Act affecting the offender, take the following in-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 11 with the following:
“nal justice system;
(b.1) all available sanctions, other than confinement, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(d) the impact of gender on the factors described in paragraphs (a) to (c).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 11 the following:
“(2) The Service shall collaborate with the national Indigenous advisory committee and any regional or local Indigenous advisory committee to develop other specific factors required to respect the principle set out in paragraph 4(g).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(2) The factors described in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) are not to be taken into consideration for decisions respecting the assessment of the risk posed by an Indigenous inmate.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 23, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 24,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 24, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 11 with the following:
“nal offenders” with “Indigenous community or any Indigenous organization” and “Indige-”
(b) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 11 with the following:
“placing “aboriginal community” with “Indigenous community”.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
Clause 24 carried on division.
On Clause 25,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 12 with the following:
“82 (1) The Minister shall establish a national Indigenous”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
“(1.1) If the Service considers it appropriate in the circumstance, it shall seek advice from an Indigenous spiritual leader or elder when providing correctional services to an Indigenous inmate, particularly in matters of mental health and behaviour.”
The question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 12 with the following:
“nous spiritual leader or of their own elder after consultation with”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 13 with the following:
“munity concerned”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 3.
Clause 25, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 26
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 13 with the following:
“sionals or by persons acting under the ongoing supervision of reg-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
“istered health care professionals and includes mental health care and cultural and spiritual care provided by Indigenous spiritual leaders or elders; (soins de santé)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 26, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 13 the following:
“(2) Section 85 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
supervision means the provision of guidance or direction, support, evaluation and follow-up by the registered health care professional for the purpose of achieving appropriate outcomes for the care for which the decision-making authority was delegated.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
Clause 26 carried on division.
On Clause 27,
Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 27, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 13 the following:“(2) Section 86 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) The Service shall, at the request of an Indigenous inmate, provide access to health care that is culturally appropriate to the inmate and provided by Indigenous spiritual leaders or elders.
(1.2) The Service shall consult, in a respectful and meaningful manner, Indigenous communities and Indigenous inmates across Canada to ensure that the Indigenous spiritual leaders or elders are culturally appropriate.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 27 carried on division.
On Clause 28,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 28, be amended
(a) by replacing line 20 on page 13 with the following:
“(a) respect the professional autonomy and the clinical”
(b) by replacing line 25 on page 13 with the following:
“(b) respect those registered health care professionals”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
“(2) When health care is provided to inmates by Indigenous spiritual leaders or elders, the Service shall support their autonomy and independence and their freedom to exercise, without undue influence, their judgment in the care and treatment of Indigenous inmates.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 13 the following:
“(2) The decision-making authority of the registered health care professional in relation to the health care provided to inmates cannot be delegated to a person acting under their supervision.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
Clause 28 carried on division.
Clause 29 carried on division.
On Clause 30,
Glen Motz moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 14 with the following:“89.1 The Service shall, subject to security requirements, provide access to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 4.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 14 with the following:
“(b) to enable inmates and their families or support persons to understand”
Pam Damoff moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “support persons” with the word “an individual identified by the inmate as a support person”
The question was put on the subamendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 30, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 31,
Julie Dabrusin moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 14 with the following:“tured intervention unit, including respecting the making of a determination by an institutional head, the Commissioner or the committee established under subsection 37.31(3) as to whether the conditions of confinement of an inmate in a structured intervention unit should be altered or as to whether an inmate should remain in such a unit;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 0.
“(2.1) Paragraph 96(l) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:
l) précisant la manière d’effectuer les inspections lors d’une fouille à nu, d’une fouille discrète ou d’une fouille par palpation, au sens de l’article 46;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(2.1) Paragraph 96(v) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(v) for the organization, training — including training related to mental health and to safety — discipline, efficiency, administration and good management of the Service;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jim Eglinski and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 33 on page 14 with the following:
“(3) Paragraph 96(z.6) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(z.6) respecting the assignment to inmates of security classifications and subclassifications under section 30 and setting out the factors to be considered in determining the security classification and subclassification, including the proximity to family and social supports in cases where the inmate has a mental illness or disorder or a history of self-harming behaviour;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(4) Section 96 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (z.6):
(z.61) respecting the assignment to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary of security classifications and setting out the factors to be considered in determining the security classification;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 31, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 32 carried on division.
On new Clause 32.1
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-83 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 15 the following new clause: “32.1 Paragraph 101(c) of the Act is replaced by the following: (c) parole boards make the least restrictive determinations that are consistent with the protection of society;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 33 to 38 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 39,
Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-83, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 16 with the following:“subsection 29.01(1) of the Corrections and Condi-”
The question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 39, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 40 carried on division.
On new Clause 40.1,
Glen Motz moved, — That Bill C-83 be amended by adding after line 30 on page 16 the following new clause:“Report to Parliament
40.1 The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must cause to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the coming into force of this section a report that includes
(a) the proposed regulations respecting the physical requirements for structured intervention units;
(b) the costs of implementing those regulations; and
(c) a schedule for the implementation of those regulations.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“Report to Parliament
40.1 Six months after the day on which this section comes into force, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must assess each penitentiary to determine the changes that are required for the penitentiary to meet the physical requirements established under this Act.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must cause a report of the assessments to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the report is completed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“Report to Parliament
40.1 Within 3 years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted by this Act respecting the structured intervention units and their operation shall be undertaken by the Commissioner, within the meaning of section 2 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
(2) The Commissioner must submit the report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to the Correctional Investigator, within the meaning of section 157 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
(3) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the report is submitted under subsection (2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“Review and Report
40.1 (1) At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted by this Act must be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) must, within one year after the review is undertaken under that subsection, submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 41 carried on division.
The Title carried.
The Bill, as amended, carried on division.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-83, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.
Pam Damoff moved, — That the Committee report the following to the House in relation to its study of Bill C-83:
After having studied Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the Committee wishes to make the following recommendations to the Government:
a) That, given the testimony that the Committee heard from the Correctional Investigator and other stakeholders, and the fact that there are only ten women currently housed in administrative segregation units across the country, the Committee strongly encourages the Correctional Service of Canada to consider alternatives to segregation in women's institutions such as the pilot program proposed in 2016 by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; and
b) That, the Correctional Service of Canada examine the placement and/or transfer of an inmate to a facility far away from their home or community and the impact of the transfer on the inmate’s contact with family and an individual identified by the inmate as a support person.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
At 7:36 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.