Evidence of meeting #36 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 restitution.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
You indicated in your closing comments that you clearly view rehabilitation as a two-way commitment, but you fell short of endorsing this bill.
I'm curious, generally, but with respect to private member's bills, obviously some assessment goes on within the Correctional Service of Canada. At some point does the commission come up with a recommendation or are you here with neutrality and to answer my technical questions and any other technical questions from the committee members?
3:50 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
Yes, we're here with neutrality in regard to making an opinion, short of the fact that offender accountability is very important to the Correctional Service of Canada for the reasons I described earlier.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay.
So in my hypothetical case, where an individual came into a motor vehicle accident with a serious injury that could be in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, what mechanically would be different? Currently, if I were a creditor of the inmate and if I knew he was coming into money, I could attach garnishee proceeds if I knew the day that the cheque was coming in. But if I'm reading this bill correctly, certain priorities will be established in favour of custodial and child and spousal commitments. What does that mean mechanically for the Correctional Service of Canada in terms of keeping track of those obligations out there?
3:50 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
Mechanically it's a difficulty right now. As I mentioned, if an inmate has a family court order against him for paying both spousal support and child support, we have no mechanism that makes us aware of that. In most cases, if we do become aware of that, it's inmate-generated, in other words, that we've been advised of that. So system-wise and mechanically wise, that's an issue.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I don't mean to have you look into the future, but do you envision having to maintain some sort of registry? Or, for example, if I represent the spouse of an inmate who's owed money pursuant to a child support order, do you envisage my registering my judgment with the Correctional Service of Canada? Do you envision that kind of mechanical process?
3:50 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
From an implementation standpoint, I would see that we had to have some sort of mechanism that would bring awareness to a monetary award that was given. Those who have claim to the monetary award would have to be made aware of that in order to access those particular funds.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us.
I don't know if these are pertinent questions for you, but you mentioned that it's very hard to know what awards an inmate is getting, other than federal awards. On federal awards you said that it's fairly straightforward, that you're informed.
3:55 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
The Correctional Service of Canada is informed. Other federal departments are not.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Maybe this has been asked, but do you actively scan the departments? Do you have a mechanism for trying to find this out from federal departments?
3:55 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
No, we don't.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Do you foresee creating one, or is it just too complex?
3:55 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
Well, as I look at the intent of this bill, if it becomes law and the clarity that is sought is such that it would include awards from other government departments, we would without question have to seek that.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
When it comes to awards that are brought to your attention, not from your department but from other departments or within provincial jurisdiction, you say that it tends to be a random occurrence. You find out from someone through the grapevine and you look into it. In other words, there's no systematic way of informing you. It's somewhat random.
Hopefully this does not pose a problem, in the sense that someone could argue that not all inmates are treated the same when it comes to this law; some will be caught, and some won't. I don't imagine that's a problem, but maybe you have some insight on that.
3:55 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Transformation and Renewal Team, Correctional Service of Canada
Again, just to have clarity, for cases where there's a criminal conviction, for example inmate X is given a three-year sentence plus a restitution order of x number of dollars, when that information comes to us we would document it.
We have no ability at this point to say that they will pay. The mechanisms we would look to gain that acceptance of accountability and responsibility are counselling, the involvement of our parole officer staff, and the involvement of others who would work with the inmate to encourage them to accept their levels of responsibility.
In cases of civil court right now...as I say, if I take a family court situation with a child award, we have no mechanisms where that would come to our attention. It would be more by the inmate mentioning that he owes money for child support.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
What I'm saying is that some people would be caught; some wouldn't.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
If you would like me to jump in, is this in terms of the monetary awards that an offender would receive?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Or in terms of garnishing these monetary awards. It's basically in terms of getting your hands on the monetary awards so that you can pay the spouse.
Some would be caught and have their awards garnished; some who are maybe a little more circumspect, or whatever, would not be caught. I assume it wouldn't really be a level playing field.
Do you see that as a problem at all, or is it fine, and—?
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
As we understand it, these would be awards against Her Majesty in right of Canada, meaning the federal government. It would be the one making the monetary award. Obviously in many cases CSC would be aware of that.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
We would be aware of those, and then for other government departments, presumably arrangements could be made to determine those.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
There's one part of the bill that apparently generated some controversy when it was before a committee, I think in the last Parliament. It had to do with setting up priority rankings for distributing funds. The committee researcher at the time, Michel Bédard, said:...I have doubts as to the federal government's power to pass provisions of this kind. It is important to understand that, according to the division of powers...property and civil rights fall within provincial jurisdiction. ...the provinces have jurisdiction over contracts and all private law, including debt priority ranking.
According to your understanding, has this been resolved? Since you're going to be garnishing the money and distributing it according to a debt priority ranking, do you feel comfortable that this issue has been resolved and that you can go ahead and follow the debt priority ranking in the bill?
4 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Again, my area of expertise is correctional law, so unfortunately I can't speak to that. Thanks.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I understand.
I have another question that you maybe won't be able to answer. In the debt priority ranking, it says that the first obligation that must be paid by the offender is with respect to spousal or child support, etc., and it goes down the list. If there's any money left at the end, it goes to the offender.
In your view, is there any problem in saying that if there is any money left, it goes to the offender's dependants? This could be over and above a child support order. Do you think there would be any problem with amending the bill to do that?
Again, it may not be your area of expertise.
