Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Dominique La Salle]

--in terms of collecting some information and providing it to us.

I think there will be a dialogue between Service Canada and the inmate. For example, an inmate who turns 65 while in custody can apply for the benefit and go through the eligibility. That takes a period of time. Then a payment is suspended. But when it's time to reinstate, all we have to know before we press the button is whether this person has been released: please, Correctional Service, tell us if this person has been released.

If there's a time delay or something like that--the commissioner talked about a once-a-month report--well, we'll be able to pick up the phone, get in touch with the Correctional Service, get the confirmation by fax. We also can have the issuance of an urgent cheque.

Our responsibility is to ensure that the payment is accurate and that delivery is as timely as possible. We'll work closely with colleagues in CSC.

I'm really trying to understand what the issue is. If the issue is just that there's still a belief that the language of the existing legislation is not sufficiently clear when it says that we can interact with the inmate before or after release, then that's something. There's no question that we want to interact as early as possible, before the release, so that we are able to issue a cheque as soon as we can.

The amendment here would not do that. It just gives us a date, and so on.

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

Madam Chair, I think the fact that Service Canada is not here is a bit of a disadvantage in the sense that I have done a great deal—as we all have, I guess, from our offices, but even before that—of work with the department. I can tell you that good intentions are great, but a lot of times old age security is late or is behind and things are delayed. I think what we're trying to do here is avoid that delay as much as possible, so that it's smooth.

But I think we're also saying that there's some onus on the part of Corrections Canada to inform OAS when an inmate is about to be released, and the release date, so they can start activating that file. And of course additional information required from the inmate would come from the inmate. But if somebody from OAS or somewhere would call and make sure the interview takes place, that's all that this is trying to do: ensure that the onus is there and not just “may” be happening, that's all.

That's how I read this and that's why I'm comfortable with it.

[Dominique La Salle]

The information sharing agreement will have service standards that must be met. That will be the agreement between the two departments, where they have to meet timelines, etc.

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

Mr. La Salle, I'm a Catholic. You know St. Thomas, right, who didn't know, who had to touch to believe? Well, for me, I know there would be an exchange of information agreement after the bill is passed, but I'd like to see it here, where it actually says there's an onus here for you to....

Do you know what I'm saying? It's a little vague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I have a quick question.

The onus is already there for Corrections Services to notify HRSDC. What I'm wondering about with this amendment is because, in a sense, it removes onus from the incarcerated person, does it actually hamstring you from delivering the money to these people when they get out of jail because now the onus is not on the incarcerated person? So if you don't get two pieces to the puzzle, do you only get one piece, which could happen?

I'm just wondering, are we actually defeating what the intention is?

[Dominique La Salle]

I think that's partly the case. We have to be in touch with the inmate to establish all the personal details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay, thanks.

Mr. Savage, you're next.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

This is the only issue of contention, it seems, as we go through the clause-by-clause. It's a fairly significant bill and this is the only issue.

I think we all agree it's not in the interests of anybody—of the person being released from prison, or his family, or for the community—to have people hitting the streets without any money after having been incarcerated for a long period of time.

You've mentioned the draft information sharing agreement with Human Resources and Skills Development and Correctional Services. When Mr. Head was here last week, he indicated in his comments the following about that agreement, that it “would include information on those who are incarcerated in order to facilitate the suspension of payments, as well as information on those who were recently released”.

“Recently released” doesn't have a specific time. It also indicates that after the fact, Correctional Services will be speaking with Service Canada.

Considering how long it could take to get a cheque done, I'm concerned about that. It seems to me this is one way of addressing that.

I do wish that Correctional Services were here so we could see what that means, but it does seem to me there has to be something in the bill that says, yes, it's going to be incumbent upon, yes, the individual, but also Correctional Services should be preparing for when the time is that this person's being released and interacting with Service Canada.

You agree with that, that's why you have the agreement. It just seems to me that if the head of Correctional Services is saying that we'll do it after the fact, as opposed to preparing before the fact, we might end up with a situation that's not good for anybody--i.e., people who've been in prison for a long period of time hitting the streets with, what, eighty bucks or whatever they might have accumulated over a number of years in prison.

Can you speak to that?

[Dominique La Salle]

I cannot say a whole lot. I will say this. I also read the record and what Mr. Head said, and I think Correctional Services, before an inmate is released, has a plan. The plan would be a halfway house or parole, and so on, and for a period of time they stay in contact.

He also said that he wants to review the compensation and all that stuff. This would be an important part, I think, of that review.

So I think the intent of Correctional Services is absolutely to prepare inmates as best as they possibly can for a social reinsertion, so to speak, and that would be definitely a significant, if not one of the most important, components.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have faith in Mr. Head, I have faith in the people who work in Service Canada, and I have faith in you, but we can't govern on intent; we can govern with legislation. That's why we're trying to figure out whether something is necessary here.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mine are, again, questions at this point in trying to probe and find out how this whole scenario would work.

But I will ask up front--because I have, from time to time, heard of these, as some in the general citizenry would say, “frivolous lawsuits” that come from a person incarcerated--whether this puts too much onus, which is a term I hear being used, on Corrections Canada. For instance, there might be a “lawsuit”, or at least an attempt at same, because somebody didn't get their cheque on time, information not being provided or not being passed on by Corrections Canada.

I ask that question in view of the fact that other pensioners across this country don't even have this so-called benefit or onus of being interviewed by Service Canada. It seemed a little out of kilter that we're placing an onus on Corrections Canada when good pensioners across the country have no such benefit at all. Maybe that's another thing that members might have a concern about at a future date, but they don't have that benefit, so I have that question.

Maybe you could respond to my first question, and then I have a couple more. Is there the issue or the concern about it putting too much onus, as in lawsuits? Is that a possibility because of the wording of these particular well-intended amendments?

[Dominique La Salle]

We will issue a payment when we have a confirmation that the inmate has actually been released. The projected date, eventual date, anticipated date, and so on, are irrelevant from the point of view of issuing a cheque. We will wait to know that the inmate has actually left the premises and is out of the penitentiary or prison.

It's true that we ask citizens to apply for the benefit. Inmates will have already applied; the benefit is suspended, so it's just reinstated. That's a fairly quick process to wrap up.

In terms of frivolous lawsuits and so on, I'll ask my colleague to comment.

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

Everything is possible, but it is speculative at this point.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Of course it is speculative, but my question is on the writing that is now proposed in this conglomerate amendment here. Is it stiffer or more restrictive wording, which would give more grounds for such a possibility, as opposed to wording providing a somewhat greater latitude, but with the intent to get those cheques out as fast as possible?

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

It is true that as it is written right now, the wording definitely puts a strict obligation on Correctional Services.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Okay. With the amendment, that would put a strict obligation on the Corrections Canada.

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

The amendment, yes, because it says the inmate “or” Corrections Canada has to notify, so an obligation is being put there.

I would also like to say that already built into the bill is a clause that will allow for the transfer of information without the authorization of the inmate. Clause 11 allows Correctional Services to provide us with information such as the date of release. We don't need the authorization of the inmate to obtain the date of release.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Okay.

Also, when in fact the individual is going to be released, some of the information required would include a bank account and updated address information. Is income information also something? Obviously he's probably not going to have a job the day he gets out, but who knows? OAS comes anyhow. In terms of the GIS, this is something that is required to be provided, right, and not something that Corrections Canada can necessarily be presumed to send in? That's personal financial information that only the prisoner, or the soon-to-be-released prisoner, would have?

[Dominique La Salle]

That's right. They don't need that information to do their Correctional Service business. There's a risk of mixed information, of error. We like to deal with the person directly.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So you would be asking questions in terms of if there's a spouse, if there's other income anticipated.

[Dominique La Salle]

Exactly. And there's back and forth. We check and so on and so forth.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So therefore the onus is to keep that on the incarcerated person soon to be released.

On my last question, again, as my colleagues across the way have pointed out, the answer might have come from Corrections Canada, but would you have any idea...? If you don't, I guess I accept that, but would it be nice to know how many inmates have bank accounts set up in advance of? Or is this a thing where it's kind of “rush, rush”, where they head out the day of their release and actually appear at a bank and try to open an account--or else choose not to, if they want to hide it in a sock or under a mattress or whatever?

Do you have any sense of that?

[Dominique La Salle]

I don't know, sir. Presumably, if one has been an inmate for a long period of time, there may not be a bank account, and they go and establish one. There are services available where one can cash a cheque quite quickly. But I'm in no position to....

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Again, I would quite concur, and I think that was inferred before, that this is personal information. I mean, I don't want to give certain things off to government. I don't have any reason necessarily to be paranoid about it, but I can well understand somebody coming out of corrections may be more so that way.

But if, in fact, they don't have a bank account, yes, a cheque can be issued to a certain address, but I do know as well that if banking officials were here today, they would say they're pretty reluctant to be cashing cheques on the part of some other person. They want to know whether you have an account here, that kind of thing. Yes, the government cheque is good, there's not going to be a bounce of that cheque, we assume, but they want to be sure that this is the person whose name is on the cheque, obviously.

So these kinds of things, again, I think as you attested to, can only be provided by the individual and not Corrections Canada. I think it's a bit of an intrusion to assume that Corrections Canada corrals that information to provide it to Service Canada.

So I would have some concerns about the wording of the amendments in terms of the overmuch onus it places in view of some of this information that would be required to do the transaction and have it updated and cheques coming again.