Evidence of meeting #35 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Do you recall my last comment? Just agree, say yes, and we're all good.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Is this going to take into account accrued interest and back payments that are due as well?
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
If a person receives an award—let's say it was $1,000 and there was $50 of interest accrued on that. If they got $1,050, then I think every amount should go to the victim. This is for victims. There again, I include the family when I say victims generally.
If there's money coming from that award, anything the inmate owes should all totally satisfy the judgments against him, and then he can have whatever is left.
Conservative
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
There would be no additional burden on the Correctional Service of Canada or the Government of Canada, in terms of trying to send that money in different directions. It's all going to be administered by a court ruling.
Conservative
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Excellent. Thanks for bringing it forward. I have had two constituents in the last month come forward to talk about how they lost $60,000 in a Publishers Clearing House scam, and another one in a dating scam. I know for sure they'd be upset if the perpetrator were able to benefit from awards from the Government of Canada while they're out the cash and the perpetrator is not.
That was just a comment, but I think Mr. Aspin has some questions.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I'd like to make a comment before we go to Mr. Aspin. I don't know if you can identify with this, but in my riding the main issues I deal with from constituents are either the economy or health care.
Sometimes the economy is more prevalent, and in the next couple of months maybe it's health care. But always number three, after those two, is crime and victims of crime. That comes up wherever I go. I have a big riding and I cover every quarter of my riding, in the rural parts as well as the urban parts.
Conservative
Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Congratulations, Mr. Lauzon, on bringing this bill forward. To my way of thinking, it's almost like a slam dunk. As you've indicated, it's hard to believe that this hasn't been addressed before. It's almost a no-brainer.
I'm just personally curious about one comment you made in your presentation. You indicated that your bill would hold offenders certainly more accountable, and I understand that. But you also indicated it would be assisting their rehabilitation. I think I know what you mean by that, but I'd like to hear it in your words.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
When we talk about rehabilitation, I understand that to mean we're preparing inmates for a return to society. When those people return to society, they are faced with the same responsibilities you and I are. Actually if anyone owes spousal payments or child care payments, or if we have any outstanding judgments against us, we have to accept responsibility for that. To me, as I say, it's common sense. It just makes good sense to me that a criminal or an inmate should have the same responsibility as an ordinary citizen. I'm amazed that they don't.
I'm so enthused about this. It's not going to solve all their problems. As I said, it's not the total rehabilitation package, but it's going to aid in their rehabilitation. Let's say if they got $1,000 in prison and they had to give it to their spouses, for child support or whatever, maybe when they get out they'll realize, hey, they're supposed to pay child support—that's their responsibility.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Is there anyone else on that side, because you have a minute left?
Mr. Norlock, go ahead please.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm just wondering, Mr. Lauzon, if you have thought about any unintended consequences to this legislation. I'm just wondering if there is a possibility that this may encourage action against the crown, if someone believes that now there is a way they would be able to score some dollars for their spouse.
We're assuming that each one of these offenders—I may be wrong to assume—wants to evade paying their spouse, but what if they saw this as an opportunity to bring forward an action against the crown and maybe win so that their spouses would receive money?
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
That's a good point. The research I've done is not scientific. I can tell you, from speaking to prison guards who deal with these issues on an ongoing basis, that what they tell me is that it's a bit of a game. One of the members mentioned that in prison it's a different mentality than we have in open society. So there are a lot of games played. Part of the game is that, with some inmates, they just put these in holus-bolus thinking it's like a lottery, thinking that eventually....
So no, I think it's just the opposite. It's going to have a disincentive on them because they're going to realize.... Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I don't think too many people who are in there are really concerned about their victims, or not to the degree they should. So if they knew that their victim was going to get the proceeds, I think that would discourage them from putting forth an action.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
We're past our hour now. We're looking forward to having a number of witnesses here. We have a good number of witness who have been brought forward and we're going to begin with the officials on Tuesday.
We thank you for appearing before our committee today.
