Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I call to order meeting number 30 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, September 24, 2010, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

We will be proceeding now with clause-by-clause consideration.

We are very pleased to have two officials here from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to answer our questions. They are Mr. La Salle and Madam Birba.

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

My name is Rose-Gabrielle Birba, and I am with HRSDC legal services at the Department of Justice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Great. Thank you for being here.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. So we will begin with clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry?

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

Can we show it on division, please?

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll begin with an amendment from the NDP.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment is to permit the prisoner to notify the minister at the time they are aware of their upcoming release. As the section reads currently in the draft bill, the prisoner would only be allowed to notify the minister upon release or subsequent to the release. That's the tense of the verbs that are in that section now. The effect of this--as we heard from Mr. Head, the Commissioner of Corrections--would be to allow the prisoner to notify the minister at the time they know, which is normally about a month before the person is actually released. That's the standard practice.

Mr. Head and the officials from the Department of Human Resources said they will probably be notified by the Department of Corrections on a monthly basis of those upcoming releases. But that evidence wasn't entirely clear; that's my assumption. This would simply confirm the ability of the prisoner to give the notice upon his or her notice of the upcoming release.

The purpose behind this is fairly simple. As it stands right now, the processing of the application for the re-establishment of the benefit under the OAS--the paperwork, the process within the department--would only commence upon the receipt of this notice. So the person would be out of custody in the general community with no access to funds.

That will result in one of two scenarios. The person may, out of desperation, commit another crime to get access to funds in order to sustain themselves, and then be re-incarcerated. That's not uncommon. So we expose ourselves to that kind of a risk. The alternative, what I'm proposing, goes some distance to avoiding that.

The second reality is that if the person goes to municipal welfare, that department, at the municipal level, will end up picking up the cost. All of the procedures you have to go through to get that money repaid will simply be unnecessary if this amendment goes through.

So I'll summarize. The effect is simple. The prisoner will be allowed to notify the minister. The department will be able to react and begin to prepare the paperwork, so when the person leaves the custodial setting their funds will be ready. That's the intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

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

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, can I just make one more comment?

There are a number of other amendments here, but they're all consequential to this one because the same type of wording appears, where the prisoner is limited to giving the notice at the time of release or subsequent to release. The subsequent amendments that are here are all consequential to that. That kind of wording appears on a number of occasions through the rest of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right. I think we would obviously have to go through each one, and there is some change in wording, just as far as who it's referring to.

We'll begin with Mr. Vellacott.

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

I have more in the way of questions, at this point, for our officials from the department, first off.

I note the fact that the “presumptive release date” is not a term that's used, as I understand it, currently by Corrections Canada, so that's a little bit difficult in itself, pretty broad, and problematic from that point of view. But are there possible changes that occur in the last days or week or whatever that would then...? Maybe a letter has gone in, supposedly, if it was in keeping with Mr. Comartin's amendment here, and then all of a sudden there's some change for whatever reasons: reasons of behaviour within the institution, or whatever those might possibly be. Could you respond on that?

My second part of the question is with regard to what would occur under this kind of an amendment. I could conceive of some person attempting to mislead the department and suggesting they were going to be out, saying they were hoping to be out by this date, or were expecting to be, when that's not at all the case. So whose word are they to take at that point?

Going back to the first one, is there a possibility of change in the last days prior to where there's not, then, the release? Then the other issue is what prevents some fraudulent action on the part of a prisoner in respect to writing a letter and saying, “I'm going to be released on x, y, z day”, when this isn't so?

[Dominique La Salle, Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

I think what the department needs is a confirmation that the inmate is actually out of custody, out of prison, out of the penitentiary. A target date is a target date. A potential date is a potential date. But until it happens, there's still a possibility that the date could be changed by events such as bad behaviour. I'm no expert in correctional services, but I think that's the point here, that actually it's a two-pronged approach. From the inmate's perspective, we need the information on banking accounts, family status, etc., so we can prepare what will be the right entitlement for this person. We also need a separate confirmation from Correctional Services on the actual date once the inmate has been freed up.

In terms of giving a phony date, which I think is what you were alluding to, it's possible, but the department at Service Canada will not act on issuing a cheque until the confirmation is received from Correctional Services. We certainly can prepare the documentation and do the legwork and paperwork that is prepared, but we press the “send” button when we have confirmation that the individual is actually out of custody.

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

Thank you.

If I could just quickly follow up, then, am I correct in understanding that there is no such language presently as “presumptive release date”? This is not current common language at all?

[Dominique La Salle]

Maybe my colleague will want to speak to this.

That language is not used in the federal government. It's used in the United States under a different system. In our system, with parole, etc., it's not the language that is used. I think it's used in some provinces.

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

That's correct. It was mainly language that was used mostly in the States, and for a while it was used here in Canada. But because we are not operating under the same system, “presumptive release” is more with earned remission. Now we are going with a different system about parole, so it is my understanding that we are no longer using that term in Canada.

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

What would be the kinds of things that might change this release date? Can you give us examples of the kinds of reasons that might change?

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

I will try, but anything might happen between the time someone is supposed to leave and the date the person is released from prison. As Mr. La Salle was saying, behaviour is something that can change it. I don't have a lot of examples in mind, but we can think about behaviour or any type of event that might occur and make this person no longer available to be released on that date.

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

If they do not have a place to go, that type of thing, does this have an effect, or are they jut kind of out on the street? If they don't know where they're going, they don't have an address indicating where they would be staying, are these factors, or is it just unfortunate when they don't have a set place?

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

It is my understanding from the different witnesses who've testified that the minute someone is released, technically Correctional Services works with them, I believe, and has at least an idea of where they will be. Sometimes someone will be released, but part of their sentence is that they be monitored for a certain period of time. This is my understanding from the different witnesses who have testified from Correctional Services.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Maybe I can just follow up on that. I had hoped to contact Mr. Comartin this morning to discuss it further.

This is the way the proposed subsection now reads, in part:

while the person is incarcerated, payment of their pension shall commence in respect of the month in which they are released but only after they notify the Minister in writing of their release.

Mr. Comartin's amendment wants to change that to say:

but only after they or the Correctional Service of Canada notify the Minister in writing of the person's presumptive release date.

As I understand it, “presumptive release date” is not something that's commonly used by Corrections Services or Service Canada. What I would think it might mean is that Mr. Comartin's talking about the potential release date, which may change for whatever reason. His concern would be that the process would start earlier by virtue of his amendment, and probably takes issue with the wording that says “but only after they notify the Minister in writing of their release”.

It's a question of tenses there. He's indicated that he would like them to have the potential to notify before their release date.

So my question is what's in that tense? Does that tense as it now reads in this section mean they can't notify you until after the release date? Or does it mean they can before or after? Maybe you can just clarify that.

[Dominique La Salle]

Yes, with pleasure.

Our shared view is that the current text of the proposed bill would allow the inmate to contact Service Canada ahead of release so that we can go through the legwork of establishing the right entitlement, etc. So there's nothing preventing the inmate from doing that.

Actually, we will encourage that in our contacts with.... When the payments are suspended, there will be communication with the inmate, saying your payment is suspended x, y, z; this is why; upon release you'll be able to resume the payments; and we suggest you do this, this, and this, etc.

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

Again, just with regard to the tense itself--it's kind of important to know this--if that section had said, “but only after they notify the Minister in writing after they have been released”, that would mean after the release date. But in this case, you're saying this wording of this tense allows him to notify you both before and after?

[Dominique La Salle]

Exactly. The language was chosen so that we don't.... If the language says it must be done before, and for some reason it's not done, then maybe we're in a conundrum. So the language now allows before or after.

[Rose-Gabrielle Birba]

The language of the act is neutral enough not to set a timeframe as to when the person has to notify. There are two steps. The first step is we have to pay you, we have to reinstate payment. When? When you let us know that you will be released or you are released, payment will occur.

The text says they must “notify the minister in writing of their release”. The text does not say to notify in writing that they have been released. Therefore, from our perspective, it is neutral enough, because it's just talking about an event. The event is a release.

So technically you can notify prior to your release.