Evidence of meeting #30 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I think the intentions here for all of us are the same thing. This is about protecting the public. It's making sure there's a smooth transition from incarceration out. It's always been my understanding that there's quite a bit of work that goes on with an individual who is incarcerated prior to release, whether it's the movement from a halfway house and so on. There's supposedly a lot of work that goes on. So I have every reason to think that Corrections Canada would be working with Service Canada to ensure that transition happens.
I think the concerns we have are to make sure that we reduce any ambiguity as to who's doing what and how it's going and that interpretation. If we can find a way to make clear...and that the onus is on everyone here with the right intentions. I think all of us dealing with constituents have seen too many times how things have fallen through the cracks. It's nothing to do with Corrections Canada, but to do with Service Canada and people getting their pension cheques and finding where people are located.
So I think we all have the same intent here of wanting to make sure that it happens and that we reduce the ambiguity. In the midst of Dr. Wong's last comments and my own, we may have found the wording that may solve the problem and satisfy everyone.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
All right.
I think we are just about ready to vote on the subamendment. I just want to give them an extra moment.
Did you want to add something else? That would be great.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
There's just one point. I'm assuming Corrections Canada has been here, but if we can't satisfy everybody--and maybe we have--then maybe we need to have Corrections Canada come to the committee and exactly outline for us what is the current process so that we make sure we are doing it right.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
They were here, and we did have a full opportunity to ask them questions. But I know that sometimes as we're going through, there are other questions.
I think we are ready, then, to vote on the subamendment from Mr. Lessard. We'll start with his first subamendment that we've just been discussing.
Sorry...?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, as for the possibility to give notification of the time of release, following Mr. Komarnicki's suggestion, we will withdraw the sub-amendment and the amendment, conditional to unanimous consent of our colleagues, obviously. In light of the latest information we have received, we can see that they have become essentially needless, especially in light of Clause 11. Furthermore, some information we have received regarding the effect of Clause 2 leads us to believe that a good part of Clause 4 could be taken out. However, we are not there yet.
If our colleagues agree, I will withdraw my sub-amendment. If Mr. Comartin is allowed to do the same, I believe he will also withdraw his amendment, which will allow us to move on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay. We'll begin with your subamendment.
Is there unanimous consent for Mr. Lessard to withdraw his subamendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
(Subamendment withdrawn)
Mr. Comartin, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Is there unanimous consent for Mr. Comartin to withdraw his amendment?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
We are ready to resume.
Just before I give the floor to Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Savage had a quick question he wanted to ask.
November 2nd, 2010 / 10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Chair.
I had a question I just wanted to raise; it's not apropos to these amendments, but it's around the bill, and it occurred to me yesterday in discussions I had.
I just want to find out if the department has thought about this. In the event of somebody who is improperly incarcerated—so somebody who was found not to have been guilty after the fact—is it automatic that not only would they get a resumption but they'd make up the back pay they had been missing?
Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
We have a policy of administrative error or bad advice--well, it's not “bad advice”, it's something else—where we pay, yes.
Conservative
