Evidence of meeting #38 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was restitution.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Howard Sapers  Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Marie-France Kingsley  Director of Investigations, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Catherine Kane  Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Elissa Lieff  Director General and Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Department of Justice

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Sapers was here earlier and he said that, in his opinion, the mechanism that could be put in place would be a registry making it possible to keep track of all the information. He also felt that managing that information would be quite complex and perhaps costly.

Would you care to comment on the idea?

4:30 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

I think that my colleagues from the Correctional Service of Canada would be best placed to indicate how onerous that would be. I do recall that Mr. Toller made some comments about adjustments to the offender management system that might be required to make this work to the fullest extent possible.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Do you think a registry would be the best solution in terms of managing this information? It could list who an inmate's creditors were, for instance. Should something like that be put in place?

4:30 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

Again, I think the Correctional Service of Canada, which already manages some of the debts owed by offenders, would be in a better place to indicate what else it needs to do. My understanding is that it already has something in the way of a register or an offender management system that keeps track of some of those obligations of offenders. They might simply have to adjust that to take into account these other requirements to pay out, as well as the appropriate priorities.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Ms. Lieff, I see you have more expertise in family, children and youth issues. At the federal level, is the payment of support obligations by inmates a serious problem?

4:30 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Department of Justice

Elissa Lieff

I can't provide you any information with respect to inmates because I don't work with correctional services, but I can tell you in terms of some of the examples that Ms. Kane has given that there are existing programs in each province and territory. They're called maintenance enforcement programs and are set up to collect outstanding support orders. Again, that kind of information would have to be shared or made available in some way with respect to the offenders in institutions, for this to be set up and then work.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Thank you very much.

Would you say that we currently have the resources needed to implement a bill like this?

4:30 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

I'm not in a position to say. It would be for the Correctional Service of Canada to indicate how well equipped they are to administer this bill. Mr. Sapers was saying that in his opinion they're capable, and his opinion carries more weight than mine when it comes to Correctional Services matters.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you very much.

Mr. Leef.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

I guess for everybody listening today and tweeting the results of our discussions here, we'll say for the record that Ms. Lieff and Mr. Leef are in no way related.

4:35 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

That's letting her off the hook, not me.

I'll follow up with a couple of the questions I asked Mr. Sapers and see if there's a consensus. I had asked about a monetary award being made pursuant to a legal action or a proceeding. Mr. Sapers said that if an inmate's property were damaged—something as minor as a shoe or a Walkman—it could constitute a legal action or proceeding against Her Majesty. It raised the hypothetical question of whether that would be subject to garnisheeing to meet the obligations of this act.

Under section 234 of the commissioner's directive, as it was quoted, would those sorts of things within the correctional environment constitute a legal action or proceeding against Her Majesty? Would an inmate receiving a monetary award be subject to this act?

4:35 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

Before that example was raised, I hadn't turned my mind to that issue, the replacement value of property damaged while a person is serving his sentence. If we were looking at the definition of a legal proceeding against the crown, and if that was the manner in which the offender sought to recover the damages, I think it would fall within the category of a legal proceeding.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

So through the commissioner's directive that would...

4:35 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

I don't have the commissioner's directive in front of me. It may be a matter of how this has been interpreted in other matters dealing with correctional law.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

I'm still trying to figure out where the onus falls in administering this. Maybe it makes logistical sense for the onus to fall on Corrections Canada. I'm still having a difficult time seeing that spelled out in the legislation—that it falls to the responsibility of Corrections Canada. This bill refers to a monetary award being paid. But the balance is paid after all other conditions have been met. So it doesn't seem to me that the money goes to the inmate, and then the inmate pays the money to the three or four categories related to the debt. That is actually paid out by some other entity.

Do you have any indication of who that entity is? I know we've all been leaning towards CSC, but I haven't seen that spelled out in here, other than in words to the effect that it falls under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I'm assuming this body of legislation can apply to Canadian courts as well.

4:35 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

My understanding was that the Correctional Service of Canada would be responsible only because it's responsible for the administration of the act. But you're correct that there's nothing in this bill that indicates who is responsible for making the payment.

The court that's making the order against the crown wouldn't necessarily be aware that these obligations were outstanding. It might not be feasible to expect the court to indicate that various portions of the award be paid out first to outstanding family lawyers and then to restitution and surcharge, and so on.

For the easier administration of the regime in an order against the crown, it's likely that whoever's responsible for making the payment—CSC in an offender's claim—would then be responsible for designating the portion or amount to be paid to the various debtors.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

That's the best broad interpretation we can get right now.

4:35 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

To give it meaning that would be feasible and practical....

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Okay, that makes sense.

This might be out of the scope of your duties, but you don't know offhand what typical, average settlements are for in our country?

No?

Well I think I've maxed out my questions for you. Do you want to ask me any?

4:40 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you very much, Mr. Leef.

Mr. Scarpaleggia for seven minutes....

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

The premise of your appearance here today was to answer questions about the constitutionality of the bill and so on. My understanding is that the Department of Justice doesn't comment on the constitutionality of private members' bills. Is that why you can't comment on these things or why the department...?

We're very happy to have you, by the way, but is that why the department would not have sent, say, somebody who could answer constitutional questions, because it doesn't give those types of opinions when it comes to private members' bills?

4:40 p.m.

Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Catherine Kane

We were asked to appear before the committee, to my understanding, based on an appearance by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, who had questions put to her and she suggested that with respect to certain issues it might be advisable to ask her Department of Justice colleagues to comment on restitution surcharge and the family law order system.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

I must have misunderstood the conversation we had, but I guess that was in camera so we can't discuss it?