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?