Human Resources Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Comartin now, please.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks, Madam Minister, and the rest of the witnesses, for being here.

Following up on Mr. Lessard's question, we heard from Commissioner Head that they always know at least a month in advance--I think this was universal, and I don't think there were any exceptions--of when a prisoner is going to be released.

The way you've worded clause 5, it only allows the ex-prisoner to notify the minister once they've been released. That's the tense of the verbs in that section.

Would you be open to an amendment that would allow them to notify the minister at the time they become aware of their date of release?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I think one of the key things here is that a lot can happen in a month, and we want to make sure that the entitlement resumes once they are released. If, for example, someone were to apply a month before the release and two weeks later do something that would prevent their release, then we would be going through with the administration. We wouldn't know where they were, that they hadn't been released, and we would get into a situation where we conceivably could be paying them even though they haven't been released.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

But you've got a double check on that because the commissioner's office is going to send you, on a monthly basis, people who are going to be released. It would be very simple for them, on that monthly statement, to be advising you if the situation has changed. There's no particular problem with doing that.

[Diane Finlay]

Well, that's--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sorry, Madam Minister, for interrupting, but Mr. Head made it quite clear that it's a computerized system, so it's quite easy to make the adjustment. We're talking about very few notifications on a monthly basis. There may be some months where there'll be no releases at all, so it's quite easy to do it.

Let me simply make this point so that you understand--and I think other members of the committee share this concern. What's going to happen is if you are notified in the month they're released, we'll have people on the street over 65, probably having been incarcerated for a long period of time, totally unemployable, both because of age and because of the criminal record, with no funds at all other than the $80 they get when they get out of prison. There will be a high rate of reincarceration as a result of that, or they will have to go on municipal welfare rolls. That's not fair to the municipalities or the provinces. That's our concern.

It seems to me that that type of amendment, which would allow the notification to come at the time the prisoner is aware of it, would resolve those concerns.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

We do share your concern about when they are released, but, quite frankly, you point out that the numbers will be very low. Service Canada would be administering the OAS, as they do now, and there is provision within Service Canada that they can write an expedited cheque under unusual circumstances. So if someone were released, say, Monday, they went down to Service Canada, filed the information, or, as you say, primarily the banking information so that we could confirm it, as soon as it's confirmed with the institution we can issue a special cheque on very short notice. So they don't have to wait an entire month to receive the benefit. That's something we have already contemplated in the implementation.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

This is not a negative reflection on the staff in your department, but after 10 years here I can tell you that I don't have a lot of hope that that is going to be done efficiently, simply because you don't have enough staff to do it efficiently. But I'll leave that.

I want to go to another point. That's the issue of what is almost certainly an inevitable charter challenge to this legislation. Did the department get a legal opinion, and, if so, are you prepared to share that with us?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

One thing that's important to recognize is that our government does believe that this is legitimate; it is constitutional. OAS already has several conditions. It's not a universal program. There are conditions required to receive it. There's a residency requirement, there's an age requirement, and there's even income testing to determine what level.... GIS is income tested, so there are already conditions on that.

But we do have a government opinion. Before we table legislation, we run it past the lawyers, and they do believe that this is legitimate.

Did you want to add anything, Mark?

[Mark McCombs, Senior General Counsel and Head, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

I'm Mark McCombs. I'm head of legal services, HRSDC, at the Department of Justice.

From the Department of Justice's perspective, we're satisfied the legislation is constitutional and is consistent with the charter. We have a requirement under the Department of Justice Act to state if it is not, and we have certified that it is. So from that perspective, in terms of charter litigation, that would be speculative at this point.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sorry, the opinion didn't take into account the charter?

[Mark McCombs]

No. Under the Department of Justice legislation, section 4.1, the Minister of Justice is required to examine all legislation and determine if it is consistent with the charter. In the event that it isn't, we have to report this to the House; we have not reported it to the House,and the minister is quite clear that we've determined that it's constitutional.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. McCombs, when you speak we're getting some feedback, and I think it's because your earpiece is close to the microphone. Perhaps you could sit back a little.

[Mark McCombs]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I don't have enough time to argue this with you, so I'm going to move on.

Madam Minister, let me just raise this one point. You pointed out that the existing legislation does have conditions on it for everyone: age, citizenship, residency. I think those are conditions that apply to the right to vote, but the Supreme Court of Canada determined that prisoners have the right to vote.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...citizenship requirement.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sorry, I was saying that was a condition for the right to vote.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Oh, sorry.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

There were conditions in there as well...perhaps more onerous than there are here. In that situation, under the equality sections of the charter, they found that prisoners had the right to vote.

Anyway, again, we're going to get into a legal argument here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Comartin your time has actually expired.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Oh, I have so much more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Well, you'll probably get another chance. If we get through, you might get another round.

We'll go to Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Minister. Certainly I think the title of the legislation, ending entitlements to prisoners, is a good one.

I was pleased to see you had reference to a constituent of mine from Redvers, Saskatchewan, in your speaking notes. I think that quote captures the essence of this bill. It states:

The taxpayers of this country are providing room, board and medical care for these people who have chosen to disregard the rules of our justice system and the rights of those they have acted against.

I know the members of the opposition have referred to section 78. It's a somewhat cumbersome section, and if it worked at its best, it would take $25 a week, or $100 a month, away from the OAS or GIS, which wouldn't be very much. The rest, I suppose, would go into the account.

I take it that section 78 doesn't address what we're trying to do with this bill, in your view.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

You're absolutely right. If an institution were to deduct $100 a month, $25 a week, first of all, they'd have trouble accessing those funds, so it becomes extremely problematic. Secondly, it doesn't end the fact that prisoners who have been convicted criminals would be receiving the old age security benefit. That was intended to ensure that Canadians in their senior years would have a certain standard of living that would allow them to take care of room and board, to house and feed themselves.

These benefits are already received by prisoners at taxpayers' expense. They're getting their room; they're getting their board. We believe these prisoners should not be getting paid twice.