Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

We're going to continue with debate. He's amending Mr. Comartin's amendment.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, in order to facilitate understanding of the text I believe Mr. Comartin wants also to clarify a term in the English version. The French version is not problematic but it seems there is a problem with the English wording. Is that so?

[A member]

Yes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

So maybe that correction could be made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, just clarify.

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

To follow that up, if you look at the French, le terme “prévue” has a significantly different meaning from the term “presumptive” in English. Because of the connotations of “presumptive release”, which occurs elsewhere in our legislation, similar wording is not a problem in French.

I have to tell you, Madam Chair, the use of the term “presumptive” was not my wording; it was actually the drafters who used it. I had anticipated that they would use either “anticipated release”, “upcoming release”, or “forthcoming release”—that kind of wording.

From discussions with Mr. Lessard off the record, I'm proposing that a better translation, quite frankly, of the French word “prévue” would be “anticipated” rather than “presumptive” release. He's agreed that this is the wording we should use in English.

That's the combined amendment that we're doing to my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

So this would be your subamendment? Is what you're proposing to change it in two places...?

What we're going to do is proceed with both of those changes as two separate subamendments. We'll discuss and vote on the first one and then we'll proceed to the second one as you've just described it.

Is that all right?

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

Could we clarify what the subamendment is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Right. I'll clarify the one we're discussing right now and will be voting on.

I'll read it in English: but only after they or the Correctional Service of Canada, with the authorization of the incarcerated person, That would be the subamendment.

At this point, we're still going on to saynotify the Minister in writing of the person's presumptive release date.

Again, we're just dealing with the subamendment at this point that would addwith the authorization of the incarcerated person

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

Just for knowledge beyond step one, what was number two saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Number two would be the change to “anticipated”, I understand. But again, we won't deal with it right at this moment. It would be “the anticipated release date”, as opposed to “the presumptive release date”.

Yes.

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

In terms of the sequence of voting on this, though, we should vote on the subamendment first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Exactly.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll vote on both subamendments first, and then we'll vote on the amended amendment.

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

We're still continuing debate.

Madam Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was comfortable with some of the amendments earlier. I'm comfortable now, even more so, especially with the changes from Mr. Comartin, who anticipated that they would address the concerns we heard earlier from the witnesses with respect to the word “presumptive” not being used, and then, of course, the other part.

At this point, then, I understand that there's disagreement as to what the bill exactly says. This doesn't change the intent of the bill. Am I right?

[Dominique La Salle]

Which amendment do you mean?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Well, I mean the amendments that are now on the table, the two subamendments. I like both. Do those change the intent? I'm talking to all of it, because we're not going to discuss it bit by bit.

In my view, this amendment does not change the intent of the bill, does it?

[Dominique La Salle]

It makes it more restrictive, in our view.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

In what way?

[Dominique La Salle]

The language that is used now allows before or after, and the amendments here would make it before. There may be cases when information, for some reason, is not available.

We're focusing now on information on release dates. But the information that is most salient for preparing the cheques and the entitlements is actually the information that comes from the inmates themselves. That would be the personal information, the family situation, the banking information, and that sort of stuff, which is not touched by this. Our view....

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

This is only part of the bill, I presume. The information you're talking about would come once the inmate also engages in it. I think all we're trying to do here, if I'm not mistaken, is ensure....

In most cases, the system knows when a person is going to be released. They know months in advance. They don't know the date of. In most cases, if a person is being released, they'll know two to three months in advance, or at a minimum, a month in advance. All this is saying is that once the date is known, it should be communicated by the system to old age security.

Obviously subsequently, after that, if it is amended, it is with the authorization of the inmate. It means that the inmate knows that this information is going. Then, of course, it's up to him or her to also give additional information. Hopefully, the system will also make sure and talk to the inmate and give him or her the documents and whatever else is needed.

I'm still trying to understand how this would materially change the bill or make it worse.

[Dominique La Salle]

Well, it puts a responsibility on the Correctional Service that it does not have now--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's right. That's the intention.