Skip to main content Start of content

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.

Previous day publication Next day publication
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Meeting No. 35
 
Thursday, April 26, 2012
 

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security met at 3:30 p.m. this day, in Room 268, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Kevin Sorenson, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Jay Aspin, Rosane Doré Lefebvre, Randall Garrison, Candice Hoeppner, Ryan Leef, Rick Norlock, John Rafferty, Brent Rathgeber, Jean Rousseau, Francis Scarpaleggia and Kevin Sorenson.

 

Acting Members present: Kelly Block for Wai Young.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Tanya Dupuis, Analyst; Cynthia Kirkby, Analyst; Christine Morris, Analyst. House of Commons: Mike MacPherson, Legislative Clerk.

 

Witnesses: House of Commons: Guy Lauzon, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 7, 2012, and the motion adopted by the Committee on Thursday, March 8, 2012, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (vexatious complainants).
 

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

 

Clause 1 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

 

On Clause 2,

Candice Hoeppner moved, — That Bill C-293, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 to line 13 on page 3 with the following:

“91.1 (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that an offender has persistently submitted complaints or grievances that are frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, the Commissioner may, in accordance with the prescribed procedures, prohibit an offender from submitting any further complaint or grievance except by leave of the Commissioner.

(2) The Commissioner shall review each prohibition under subsection (1) annually and shall give the offender written reasons for his or her decision to maintain or lift it.

91.2 The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the complaints and grievances regime with respect to offenders who are subject to a prohibition under subsection 91.1(1).”

Debate arose thereon.

 

Rosane Doré Lefebvre moved, — That the amendement be amended by adding the words “taking into account the complainant's education and mental health“ after the words “lift it”.

 

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Rosane Doré Lefebvre and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

After debate, Clause 2, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

 

On new Clause 3,

Francis Scarpaleggia moved, — That Bill C-293 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 3 the following new clause:

“91.5 (1) Any offender who submits more than 100 complaints or grievances —including complaints or grievances filed jointly with another offender or offenders — in any twelve-month period shall be designated as a multiple grievor.

(2) If an offender is designated as a multiple grievor under subsection (1), the institutional head of the penitentiary in which the offender is incarcerated shall immediately notify the offender in writing of this fact and provide the offender with an opportunity to contest the designation in accordance with the criteria specified in the Offender Complaint and Grievance Procedures Manual.

(3) An offender who has been designated as a multiple grievor under subsection (1) may not file more than one complaint or grievance in any two-week period. If the offender exceeds this amount, he or she shall identify the one complaint or grievance with which he or she wishes to proceed.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in respect of a complaint or grievance concerning matters that would have a direct effect on the life, liberty or security of the complainant if not resolved.

(5) The designation referred to in subsection (1) shall expire after six months.

(6) If, after a designation in respect of an offender expires in accordance with subsection (5), the offender submits more than 25 complaints or grievances in the three months following the date of expiration, the offender shall again be designated as a multiple grievor. This designation, and any subsequent designation, shall expire after 12 months.

(7) The institutional head may suspend a designation under subsection (1) or (6) if the offender agrees in writing to follow a plan proposed by the institutional head that provides for a more constructive manner for the offender to express his or her dissatisfaction. Any such suspension remains in effect as long as the offender complies with the plan.

(8) The transfer of an offender designated as a mutiple grievor under this section from one penitentiary to another does not affect that designation.

(9) If the designation of an offender as a multiple grievor has been suspended because the offender has agreed to follow a plan in accordance with subsection (7), the transfer of the offender from one penitentiary to another shall not affect the suspension unless the plan is not compatible with the operations of the new penitentiary.

(10) An offender who has been designated as a multiple grievor under this section may submit a grievance against the designation and the designation shall be suspended until such time as the grievance is resolved.

(11) An offender’s designation as a multiple grievor under this section may be recorded in documents that do not relate solely to the complaint and grievance process.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francis Scarpaleggia and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

 
Francis Scarpaleggia moved, — That Bill C-293 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 3 the following new clause:

“PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW OF ACT

3. Two years after this Act comes into force, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francis Scarpaleggia and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

 

The Title carried.

 

The Bill, as amended, carried.

 

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill , as amended, to the House.

 

ORDERED, — That Bill C-293, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the Committee commenced consideration of Bill C-350, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders).
 

The Chair called Clause 1.

 

Guy Lauzon made a statement and answered questions.

 

At 5:15 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2012/05/03 7:24 a.m.