Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

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

Mr. La Salle, do you have anything to add?

[Dominique La Salle]

I would simply say that it is the responsibility of all Canadians to apply for benefits under the program. On our side, it is our duty to check the information and to issue payment as quickly as possible. This is all part of a move towards accountability, but it is assisted accountability. Indeed, we want to prompt people. We know when they are being incarcerated and when they are released.

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

Do you understand the intent of Mr. Comartin's amendment?

[Dominique La Salle]

Yes.

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

In essence, this amendment says that the Correctional Service will be able itself to supply the information. Indeed, it is easier for them to do it than for the detainee. Sometimes, they may even know the date of release before the detainee. From this perspective, is the amendment still problematic?

[Dominique La Salle]

First of all, the amendment is directed at the federal government, not the provinces.

Secondly, we believe that the present neutral language provides greater flexibility regarding the timing of the provision of information. There is nothing that can fall between the cracks since we do not require that it be done in advance. A hypothetical situation where we would not have the information would leave us sort of in a limbo.

So we believe we are well equipped with what we have here in order to do what we have to do, which is to issue payments as quickly as possible and encourage the incarcerated person to apply. It is a matter of attributing the appropriate roles to the Correctional Service and to the individual as far as personal information is concerned.

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

This is also what the amendment says. However, the amendment creates a stricter obligation in the bill. Therefore, I do not see any contradiction. On the contrary, it increases the level of security.

As for the second part of your answer, the minister and other officials told us that with regard to provinces, negotiations would be required.

[Dominique La Salle]

Absolutely.

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

But we cannot anticipate their results in this bill. The bill we are presently drafting must concentrate on the obligations of the federal government and the incarcerated person. We agree on that.

I have some difficulty linking your answer to the objective of this amendment. The amendment tries to ensure that the information is transmitted in the most effective, direct and secure way, which is through the Correctional Service. I cannot see the difficulty you are raising.

[Dominique La Salle]

If I may, I will ask my colleague to deal with the privacy and other issues that this may raise.

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

Several things need to be said.

The first is that I should point out that the information required is not the same. The information provided by the Correctional Service is the date of the release of the individual, while the information to be provided by the detainee is about the person itself. The latter is needed to ensure that the payment is made to the right person, to the right address and the right account. So we are talking about two different types of information.

Secondly, the individual may supply the information directly. This does not exempt the penitentiary and the Correctional Service from their obligations. In fact, there are two obligations. There is an obligation for the Correctional Service to provide the date of release and there is an obligation for the individual to provide his personal information. Indeed, the detainee is the one who has the most up-to-date information. For example, if he or she provides information to the Correctional Service today and if two, three days or even a week before his release his bank account number or his address change, he will need to supply them again to Service Canada through the Correctional Service. It seems to me that the most effective channel to provide this personal information is directly by the individual.

As for privacy matters, the individual might not be willing to provide this information to the Correctional Service. He or she might not want to share this information. Under privacy and access to information legislation, the Correctional Service does not necessarily have authority to collect itself that information. It does not necessarily have that power. So would this not be going a little bit too far and amount to a violation of the individual's privacy? These are issues that need to be raised.

Thirdly, I fully understand that if this bill is passed there will have to be negotiations between provinces and the federal government about sharing the information. But we do not yet know the content of such an agreement. This means that we could end up with a two-tier system depending on whether a person is incarcerated at the federal level or at the provincial level. The information to be provided could either be non existent in one case or existent in another — depending on the attitude of the various correctional services — or else it could be very different.

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

You will have to agree with me that this argument does not hold water. The negotiations will take place after the bill under consideration is passed. If we had used the reverse approach, your reasoning would be valid. You could have tabled a bill that would take into account the agreement with the provinces, but this is not how it was done.

We have a bill that spells out the obligations of the government of Canada and that establishes a number of requirements. Taking away any right from a detainee applies only at the federal level. I do not see how we could base ourselves on what could happen during a negotiation to say that an amendment should not be entertained. It will all depend on what the government negotiates.

Furthermore, I find your answers relating to matters of confidentiality very interesting and instructive. They are totally appropriate and we should take this into account. This is why I would like to amend Mr. Comartin's motion in order to insert the requirement to obtain the authorization of the incarcerated person, which is what we are doing in our own amendment which all members have before them. It reads:

(2.2) With the authorization of the incarcerated person, the Correctional Service of Canada shall inform the minister in writing, as soon as possible, of the person's release or release date, once it is known.

This takes into account two dimensions. Firstly, it takes into account the answers provided by Ms. Birba and secondly the concerns raised by Mr. Komarnicki when he said that the presumptive date of release might not be the effective date. Our language solves this problem: once the date is known. This means that it will be the official date of release.

So this is my amendment, Madam Chair, to Mr. Comartin's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

It's a subamendment to the amendment. We just need to confirm where you want that wording to fall within Mr. Comartin's amendment.

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

We fulfil the intent of Mr. Comartin's amendment, which is to inform the minister in writing of the anticipated date of release of a person. We simply change the wording while keeping the same intent. We replace his motion with the one I just read out and which you have before you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Lessard, we need a little more clarification. Are you amending Mr. Comartin's amendment? If you are, then we need to know how you would like to amend it and where you would like to put the additional wording in. Otherwise, if you're suggesting that you defeat this one, we will get to yours next. Then we would discuss your amendment.

Are you changing Mr. Comartin's amendment, or do you want to defeat this one and then go on to your amendment?

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

I understand what you are saying, Madam Chair. The idea would be to replace Mr. Comartin's amendment, if he agrees, with the one from the Bloc québécois. I believe it is more comprehensive and that it satisfies the two concerns that have been raised this morning. If he does not agree, I will indeed have to go through the exercise you just mentioned. This is the question I am asking Mr. Comartin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Lessard, we will need to follow through and complete the amendment that Mr. Comartin has brought forward. If you would like a few minutes to discuss with him how he might want to proceed and how you would support yours, why don't you take a moment to do that. Either way, we either have to amend and then vote on the amendment or we have to vote on it as it is.

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

I'd like to make a suggestion, if I may.

This is just a suggestion, but since the motions have the same intent, maybe the two members could just be given five minutes or something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I just said that.

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

Oh, sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'll give the members just a moment to discuss.

We'll suspend for just two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll resume discussion of the amendment.

I understand, Monsieur Lessard, that the way we're going to proceed is that you want to introduce a subamendment to the amendment.

Is that correct? Do you have a subamendment that you would like to move?

Would you please tell us what the wording would be and where you would like it placed?

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

Madam Chair, in order to meet the concern raised by Mrs. Birba regarding privacy matters, the sub-amendment to Mr. Comartins's amendment would be as follows:

faire avant qu'elle ou le Service correctionnel du Canada, avec l'autorisation de la personne incarcérée, n'avise le ministre par écrit de la date prévue pour la libération de la personne.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

So the subamendment would be inserted. The amendment as a whole would say:but only after they or the Correctional Service of Canada, with the authorization of the incarcerated person, notify the Minister in writing of the person's presumptive release date.

That's how your amended amendment—

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

Exactly.