| June 13, 2019 — Resuming consideration of the motion of , seconded by , — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill , , the House: |
| agrees with amendments 1, 2, 4, 5(b), 6, 7, 8(b), 9, 10, 11, 13, 14(b), 15(a), (b) and (d), 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 made by the Senate; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendments 3 and 12 because the amendments seek to legislate matters which are beyond the policy intent of the bill, whose purpose is to make targeted amendments to the Act, notably to authorize the Information Commissioner to make orders for the release of records or with respect to other matters relating to requests, and to create a new Part of the Act providing for the proactive publication of information or materials related to the Senate, the House of Commons, parliamentary entities, ministers’ offices including the Prime Minister’s Office, government institutions, and institutions that support superior courts; |
| as a consequence of Senate amendment 4, proposes to add the following amendment: |
| 1. New clause 6.2, page 4: Add the following after line 4: |
| “6.2 The portion of section 7 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: |
| 7 Where access to a record is requested under this Act, the head of the government institution to which the request is made shall, subject to sections 8 and 9, within 30 days after the request is received,”. |
| proposes that amendment 5(a) be amended to read as follows: |
| “(a) on page 5, delete lines 31 to 36; |
| (a.1) on page 6, replace line 1 with the following: |
| “13 Section 30 of the Act is amended by adding the”;”; |
| as a consequence of Senate amendment 5(a), proposes to add the following amendments: |
| 1. Clause 16, page 7: Replace line 37 with the following: |
| “any of paragraphs 30(1)(a) to (e), the Commissioner”. |
| 2. Clause 19, page 11: Replace line 28 with the following: |
| “any of paragraphs 30(1)(a) to (e) and who receives a re-”. |
| proposes that amendment 8(a) be amended by deleting subsection (6); |
| proposes that amendment 14(a) be amended by replacing the text of the English version of the amendment with the following: “the publication may constitute a breach of parliamen-”; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 15(c) because providing the Information Commissioner with oversight over proactive publication by institutions supporting Parliament and the courts has the potential to infringe parliamentary privilege and judicial independence. |
| June 11, 2019 — Resuming consideration of the motion of , seconded by , — That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill , , the House: |
| agrees with amendments 1(b), 1(c), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 made by the Senate; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a) because it is contrary to the objective of the Act that its habitat provisions apply to all fish habitats throughout Canada; |
| proposes that amendment 3 be amended by deleting “guaranteed,” and, in the English version, by replacing the word “in” with the word “by”; |
| proposes that amendment 9 be amended by deleting section 35.11; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate in respect of third-party, or market-based, fish habitat banking, which is beyond the policy intent of the Bill that is to provide only for proponent-led fish habitat banking. |
| June 13, 2019 — — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill , , the House: |
| agrees with amendments 1, 4(a) and 5(b) made by the Senate; |
| proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following: |
| “(c.1) the Service considers alternatives to custody in a penitentiary, including the alternatives referred to in sections 29 and 81; |
| (c.2) the Service ensures the effective delivery of programs to offenders, including correctional, educational, vocational training and volunteer programs, with a view to improving access to alternatives to custody in a penitentiary and to promoting rehabilitation;”; |
| proposes that amendment 3 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following: |
| “(2.01) In order to ensure that the plan can be developed in a manner that takes any mental health needs of the offender into consideration, the institutional head shall, as soon as practicable after the day on which the offender is received but not later than the 30th day after that day, refer the offender’s case to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the offender.”; |
| proposes that amendment 4(b)(i) be replaced by the following amendment: |
| 1. Clause 10, page 7: replace lines 25 to 28 with the following: |
| “(2) The Service shall ensure that the measures include |
| (a) a referral of the inmate’s case, within 24 hours after the inmate’s transfer into the structured intervention unit, to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the inmate; and |
| (b) a visit to the inmate at least once every day by a registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service.”; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 4(b)(ii) because it may not support the professional autonomy and clinical independence of healthcare professionals and does not take into account the inmate’s willingness to be transferred to a hospital or the hospital’s capacity to treat the inmate; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 5(a) because it would result in a significant addition to the workload of provincial superior courts, and because further assessments and consultations with the provinces would be required to determine the probable legislative, operational and financial implications at federal and provincial levels, including amendments to the Judges Act and provincial legislation and the appointment of additional judges; |
| proposes that amendment 6 be amended to read as follows: |
| “6. Clause 14, page 16: |
| (a) replace line 7 with the following: |
| “48 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a staff member of the same sex as the inmate may”; |
| (b) add the following after line 15: |
| “(2) A body scan search of the inmate shall be conducted instead of the strip search if |
| (a) the body scan search is authorized under section 48.1; and |
| (b) a prescribed body scanner in proper working order is in the area where the strip search would be conducted.”; |
| proposes that amendment 7(a) be amended by replacing the text of the French version of the amendment with the following: |
| “c) l’identité et la culture autochtones du délinquant, notamment son passé familial et son historique d’adoption.”; |
| proposes that amendment 7(b) be amended to read as follows: |
| (b) replace lines 32 and 33 with the following: |
| “ing the assessment of the risk posed by an Indigenous offender unless those factors could decrease the level of risk.”; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because extending the concept of healing lodges designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, and because it would impede the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada, which is responsible for the care and custody of inmates pursuant to section 5 of the Act, to be part of decisions to transfer inmates to healing lodges; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because extending of the concept of community release designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 because allowing offenders’ sentences to be shortened due to the conduct of correctional staff, particularly given the existence of other remedies, is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, including with provincial partners, victims’ representatives, stakeholder groups and other actors in the criminal justice system; |
| respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because five years is an appropriate amount of time to allow for robust and meaningful assessment of the new provisions following full implementation. |