Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Comartin.

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

I must admit I'm a bit perplexed by the debate that's going on. This amendment doesn't do anywhere near what I'm hearing both the government side and the officials are suggesting it does.

All it does is say to the government, to the Department of Human Resources, “I'm going to be released. I'm going to be released on this date.”

As I interpret this--Ms. Birba and Mr. La Salle and I disagree on this--and as I read proposed subsection 8(2.1) now, it only allows the prisoner to give notice after they're released. What we're trying to do on this side of the table is to be sure that this notice goes out earlier than that, at the time of the anticipated release, and the person is told this, in writing, by Corrections Canada. That's how the system works. They're told, in writing, by Corrections Canada this is the date they're going to be released.

What we want to do is to be assured that this time period is used by the department, so we put them on notice once we're told we're going to be released...or we're going to be releasing this person, if it's coming from the department. That's the only onus on the department. That's a role the department has now accepted they're going to do anyway.

All we're doing, from this side of the table, is saying that we want that in the statute. Because the agreement they have between the two departments now is just that, it's an agreement. It's subject to change at any time by agreement with the two parties. We're saying, as parliamentarians, we are imposing upon you the responsibility to give that notice if you're instructed to do so--remember, that's all it's doing--by the prisoner. That's the sole responsibility that Corrections Canada is going to have.

All of what Mr. La Salle is suggesting is that in terms of the personal information they need, they will continue to gather from the prisoner, or, if it's after release, from the prisoner who has now been released into the general community. All of that information will continue to come from that person. There is no onus being imposed here on Corrections Canada to provide that information by the amendments we're proposing. I just want to be very clear on that.

They will continue to do their job. The only point here is that they will start doing that work, I hope, which is what they're planning on doing, anyway--I'm just imposing that responsibility on them by this amendment--gathering that information before the person is released as opposed to after they're released, which is the way I interpret proposed subsection 8(2.1) now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Lessard.

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

I'm sorry--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry, Mr. Comartin, you weren't quite finished.

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

I just want to get this on the record. On the issue of the provincial, I did consider that, but I think it's way beyond the scope of this legislation or the authority of this government to impose any kind of obligation on the part of the provincial prison services. The only way that's going to come about is by legislation--I should be very clear on this, because I don't think this came out--at the provincial level.

We assume we're going to reach agreements with the provinces, and we have a number that have indicated they're willing to do that. As we do that, it will almost certainly require provincial legislative amendments. That responsibility will then fall on the provincial governments as to how this information is going to be shared. It's not something we can either impose or even recommend to them. That's their bailiwick, not ours. I think we would be offending them if we told them we wanted them to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Madam Chair, we need to read again Clause 4 in its entirety to see that what has been said here this morning is not true. It is not true that there will be a strict obligation placed on the Parole Board to notify the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development in order for a cheque to be issued. That is not true at all. Furthermore, we do not transfer, contrary to what some people here have said, the responsibility to the Correctional Service. The individual remains responsible for the information. Let us read the clause as it is written. It says:

"If the application by a person described in subsection 5(3) is approved while that person is incarcerated [...]"

So we are talking here about an incarcerated person. Let us read further:

[...] payment of their pension shall commence in respect of the month in which they are released [...]

So we are still talking about a person who is incarcerated. Let us read on:

[...] but only after they [...]

We are still talking about the incarcerated person. And we add:

[...] or the Correctional Service of Canada [...]"

This is what is written. It could be the Correctional Service. Let me continue:

[...] with the authorization of the incarcerated person [...]

The detainee still remains the primary person responsible for this information. We must read the text as it is written. Let us not give it a meaning it does not have. Once that person authorizes the action to be done on his or her behalf, it gets done. It does not change anything in the intent of the bill or the responsibility of the incarcerated person. This remains. Where it says "they", we are still talking about the incarcerated person. Nowhere does it say that the responsibility is being transferred and that the responsibility belongs solely to the Correctional Service. This is not what it says at all.

The Correctional Service acts only when it gets the authorization from the incarcerated person. As for personal information, Ms. Birba is right, this is dealt with in Clause 11. So personal information is another matter.

It seems to me that we are raising here dangers that do not exist and imminent dangers of lawsuits that do not exist. The incarcerated person is fully responsible for notifying... If they want help, they can authorize the Correctional Service to do so on their behalf.

[Dominique La Salle]

The amendment requires the authorization of the individual, but Clause 11 allows for a direct exchange of information in relation to the implementation of this bill. It does not require the authorization of the detainee to be informed of the date of that person's release. This is already covered in Clause 11.

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

Yes. We moved that amendment, Mr. La Salle, because during our first exchanges with you and Ms. Birba we understood that the incarcerated person had to provide the notification, unless I am mistaken.

Having now the information Ms. Birba gave us regarding Clause 11, this seems less obvious to me. If it is not necessary to do that, we will withdraw it. However, it does not take away anything from the relevance of Mr. Comartin's amendment. His amendment, even without my sub-amendment, does not transfer any responsibility that belongs to the incarcerated person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Would you like to respond, Madam Birba?

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

Yes, Madam Chairman. I just want to clarify what I said earlier. There are two types of information. The first type of information is concerning the date of release only. It's covered under clause 11 because of the agreement that will allow for giving this information without the authorization of the individual.

The second type of information is what I qualify as personal information: banking information, marital status, income, etc. For that type of information, the more personal information, you will need the authorization of the individual, unless there is a particular piece of legislation that would allow you to collect it for the purpose of your program and share it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

That's sort of the point I was going to. For the subamendment we're discussing, the inclusion of the words “With the authorization of the incarcerated person” actually confers an obligation on CSC to get their permission to provide information that they already provide with respect to the release date or anticipated release date. So it actually does confer a second obligation. I think the first is that....

Well, there's a question about the earlier part of the proposed amendment, but I'll speak to that later, probably. We're only speaking to the subamendment right now.

They already have the authorization to provide an anticipated release date. This would actually confer an obligation on them now to go and consult with the inmate to provide the information about their anticipated release date.

I'm voting against the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Have a little faith.

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

I have a lot of faith.

I'm going to ask the opposition members to defeat this subamendment, and for good reason. I think Mr. Watson makes a good point. The essence of proposed subsection 4(2.1) is that the person who is incarcerated is receiving their pension commencing “in respect of the month in which they are released”, so it's important that they are actually released before they're entitled to their pension.

So release date is very important. But here, by virtue of this amendment, by use of the word “or”, it says “they”--the prisoner--have to notify Service Canada, or, with their authorization, Correctional Services would have to notify Service Canada. Now, if they don't give the authorization, then presumably Corrections Canada can't proceed under clause 11, which they now can. So there is an obligation on Correctional Services to provide that information.

This constricts or actually restricts what already exists. Why would you want to do that?

With respect to the presumptive release date, it is somewhat comforting to speak of the anticipated release date. But what I would suggest, as a matter of some compromise, is to leave clause 11 to operate as it will, but perhaps give the incarcerated person some opportunity to notify in advance--which is what Mr. Comartin wants to accomplish--but not by virtue of this.

Mr. La Salle--and I think Mrs. Birba as well--is saying that actually proposed subsection 8(2.1) means that they--the prisoner--can notify the minister in writing of their release, and they're saying it means before or on their release. It actually says that. So why don't we leave the obligations where they are, but clarify the ending of (2.1) by saying, “before or upon their release”?

Now, would it be an acceptable amendment that says what you think the section already says?

[Dominique La Salle]

Yes, it would. That would be acceptable. That is our interpretation of it. It just puts it in words.

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

That's what your interpretation already is saying, so we're not adding or subtracting.

So I would advise members opposite to say, look, let's not introduce something that's less than clear, or that will restrict or have unintended consequences. Let's defeat both subamendments, and let's add the words that would make it clear that the incarcerated person could notify Service Canada “before or upon their release”.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

We have two more speakers on the list before we'll vote on the subamendment. So we have Dr. Wong and then we have Madam Sgro.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I echo the concerns by the previous speaker on our side. Probably he has already brought the attention that instead of giving the ownership to Corrections Canada, which will be dealt with later on, it's up to the individual now. And if it's not clear enough, those few words would really clarify.

Also, this bill would have to be seen as very fair to those law-abiding citizens who are also applying for OAS, whether they have any additional help or not.

Am I right to say that in common practice, the law-abiding citizen, a senior who is eligible for OAS, still has to write to the ministry? It doesn't come automatically. Am I right to say that?

[Dominique La Salle]

That's right.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

So to be fair to the others as well, it should be dealt with the same way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.