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?