Public Safety Committee on April 26th, 2012

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I think there are restrictions. As I said, I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to specific amendments, but personally I would be open to amendments, and if there are ways to improve the bill and still have it fair and respect the rights of victims, I'd be all for that, for sure.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Let me ask you about timing and the timeframe here. I gather from this bill that this would refer to money received while incarcerated, on a court action that was before the incarceration. Or is it during the incarceration? I'm not sure exactly.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

What I envision is that it is during the incarceration.

Any outstanding bill.... When this person receives his judgment, let's say, for example, he had filed a suit against the administration and is awarded $7,500. If there is an outstanding order for him to pay, then that has to be satisfied before he receives any benefits. That's the way I would see it, before he sees any of the money.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

You talked in your preamble about the types of crimes you mean, and I think when you talk about this bill, this is what we think about: hardened criminals, long-term criminals. But if offenders receive a jail sentence of two years, they're in a federal penitentiary. In two years, they're going to be out. I'm wondering if somehow financial planning, for want of a better word, for those prisoners themselves comes into play.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Again with all due respect, what about those spouses and the children that are at home hungry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now move back to the government side, and I see Mr. Norlock is putting his glasses on. Is that Mr. Norlock?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

It's so I can read my own writing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for those keen observations.

Thank you very much to the witness for attending the committee today and for your piece of legislation.

I do have a little bit of experience with the criminal justice system. I sat in courts in this land for probably four years through a plethora of different cases. I heard judges who dealt with restitution orders, etc., say how unlikely it was that the prisoner would ever be able to pay the restitution for a sometimes substantive crime.

But I look at this in a different light. I look at this also through your eyes to the victims, having been a victim of a crime yourself and having spoken to victims whose lives will never be the same. You mentioned there are different kinds of victims. We're dealing with people who don't generally have the same kind of social conscience as most of us, because most of us do not commit crimes and won't be in jail. They tend to not be good partners, fathers, mothers, etc., so to me this piece of legislation deals with deadbeat fathers, partners, and husbands.

This also deals with the people who commit white-collar crimes—people who cheat shareholders and employees, and while they are in jail they might just see the results of other investments. You know, the multi-millionaire who goes to jail, gets out, and then lives on his yacht while the people who invested in their fake company....

We heard in this committee in a previous Parliament how people have committed suicide, especially in Montreal—and I forget the specific case. So this also deals with that kind of individual where they have to pay restitution.

To my friends across the way who are always very worried about how this affects the perpetrator, I think they should be worried about how this affects the average Canadian who, through white-collar crime, may not be able to.... This enables the system through the Criminal Code.

Did you think about that, Mr. Lauzon?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

In all honesty I wasn't thinking particularly of the person who commits a white-collar crime, but you have an excellent point. We all read about Madoff. Some of those retired people went from having a pretty affluent lifestyle to actually having to go to food banks. How does that affect them? It has to be devastating.

So I think you made a good point. Everybody wants to rehabilitate the criminal. I'm in favour of that. I really think we're doing a favour to the criminal with this legislation, because we're forcing them to accept their responsibility and be accountable for their commitments. That's all this does—nothing more. It's not pushing the envelope; it's just making them accept their responsibility.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much. I made a few notes, and few of us would ever get ourselves into the position of committing a crime in the first place. This is the example I use for people who think that very minor crimes....

I recall dealing with a lady who had her mailbox smashed. In the course of criminal justice that's no big deal. She was insistent that the police officer come to see her mailbox that had been smashed, so I was the lucky person to go to interview her. Most people would think it was no big deal, except that the mailbox had been tole painted by her recently deceased aunt and was all she had to remember her by. So where we might all be worried that this was just a young person who did something stupid after he had a couple of beers, this is something that sticks with people.

There aren't a lot of people who win the lottery while they're in jail. There aren't a lot of people who will have these kinds of judgments. But to the average citizen out there, who deals with their life, day in and day out, and they see people who have been incarcerated and not been made responsible for the things that we, as average citizens, are responsible for, vis-à-vis spousal support.... You know, a lot of the folks who go to jail aren't really nice people, and sometimes they aren't very nice to their children and to their wives or husbands. So I think this assists them in being more responsible.

Would you not agree?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Yes, I'd agree 100%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two more minutes, but if you aren't going to take them, I will.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to pass the questioning to my friend Mr. Leef, who I believe has a couple of questions he'd like to pose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You may get in on the second round as well, Mr. Leef.

Mr. Lauzon, I want to be sure on this one. The bill does not deal with that type of monetary windfall that you may have from an investment or from anything else. It is from a court order or something that has happened to this guy while he has been in the penitentiary. So if some guy has stocks and the investments pay money, your bill doesn't touch that.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

If he has income on the outside or he has pension or whatever, that has nothing to do with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

This is only through a court order that he—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

When you do a little research about what happens in prison, in some cases maybe people have too much time on their hands, so for something to do some prisoners, as I said, and I can't stress that enough, are putting in some kind of an action against the administration or the guard every day. Occasionally it's like a lottery, you do it and if you put in 500 you might get lucky and get an award of $500 or $1,000 or whatever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, so just so we are all aware.

We'll now move back to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you. Mr. Lauzon. It's nice to see you here before the committee.

You mentioned white-collar crime. The victims of Earl Jones were constituents of mine, and he operated in my constituency so I know the impact that white-collar crime can have. Parents of friends of mine were defrauded, and a high school classmate of mine led the charge for the victims of Earl Jones. I introduced him to the lawyer who then helped him get money back from the government because the tax money that the government had was taxes paid on fictitious income. So I know all about that.

I agree with you that white-collar crime is a serious crime. I would say it's a non-violent, violent crime because it's technically a non-violent crime yet it causes violence to people and some people, as you say, commit suicide and commit violence to themselves. So it's a very special kind of crime. I think it's in a category of its own in some ways.

I think you brought up some interesting analogies between somebody who lives outside prison who hasn't paid their child support, and somebody in prison who hasn't paid their child support. For example, someone on the outside would get their driver's licence revoked, but presumably the inmate is not driving so that's not going to be a form of recourse.

I know it wouldn't necessarily be practical all the time, but if an inmate has received an award and has some child support or spousal support obligations, is it possible for the family to take the same action that they might take if the person were living outside the prison system and take that person to court? I wouldn't imagine that inmates are shielded from those kinds of legal actions, or maybe they are, I don't know.

I see your analogy with the driver's licence but when you're talking about other methods that people use with deadbeat dads who are not inmates, can these people take the same measures toward a deadbeat dad who's an inmate? Can they take that inmate to some kind of court to get payment?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

There again, as I understand it, the family responsibility is a provincial issue and under provincial legislation. I'm not a lawyer and certainly not up to speed on all this legislation, but as I understand it, if a spouse is left without support they can go to family court and get a judgment against the spouse who has abandoned them or whatever.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is that even if the spouse is an inmate?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

My understanding is that it's regardless.

Now, in the event that the spouse would get out of prison, then that order would be...or, if they were in prison, it probably would stick.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay. In some cases, I would imagine, the inmate is not necessarily estranged from his or her family—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

In some cases they're not.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

—and there is no spousal or child support order. Do you feel that this is a problem in the sense that...?

Well, obviously it's a problem, because in that case, if they did receive an award, there would be no spousal support agreement that would force them to pay that money to their spouse and children. Would you not think, therefore, that in fact any amount of money a person receives when they're in jail, whether there is a child support agreement or not, should just be channelled to the family?

I mean, why do we even want to leave the balance...not owing to the inmate in prison? Shouldn't that go to the family as well?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As I told you, I'm prepared for amendments.