Bill C-31 (Historical)

Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under this Act while maintaining entitlement to benefits for, and avoiding a reduction in the amounts payable to, their spouse or common-law partner under this Act.

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

Good morning, everyone. I would like to bring to order meeting number 28 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today we are continuing our study of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

We're very pleased today to have witnesses from Correctional Service Canada. Welcome, Mr. Don Head and Mr. Ian McCowan.

I understand that one of our witnesses will be making a presentation, and then they'll be answering our questions. What we'll do is begin with the presentation.

Is it Mr. McCowan or Mr. Head who will be presenting?

Mr. Head will be giving the presentation. You have approximately ten minutes, sir, to make your presentation. At this time, we will turn the floor over to you and ask for your presentation. Thank you.

Justice

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the response from Canadians in support of our Bill C-31 has been overwhelmingly positive. Canadians agree with our government. They really believe that it would be grossly unfair for taxpayers to continue to fund pensions for convicted criminals when those criminals are already being provided room and board by taxpayers.

Canadians want this bill passed. I urge the opposition to pass it quickly because it is the right, fair and reasonable thing to do.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Just for clarification, on Bill C-31 that we heard the witnesses on today, do we have four more meetings scheduled?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

My response would be to definitely do research into that section as well. My understanding is that isn't the way it is or the way Correctional Services interprets it, that's for sure.

I don't believe I would be in favour of that because I don't believe that is the intent of section 78. I would say I would definitely still be in favour of carrying on with the passing of Bill C-31 as it stands today.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

One could therefore conclude that.

Ms. Rosenfeldt and Mr. Gaudet, if we happen to realize that a provision of the act, which has not been applied, would allow us to achieve our objective, is there another dimension in Bill C-31 which has not been covered? Could we simply ask the Correctional Service to apply the act as worded? Could we simply state that bill C-31 has lost its stated purpose?

The question is for Mr. Gaudet and Ms. Rosenfeldt.

[Ruth Gagnon]

I would like to share with you my expertise as the director of a centre for former female inmates, more specifically as regards inmates who are released from jail.

Of course, given the way Bill C-31 is designed, we will find other mechanisms, amendments or ways to help these people re-enter society. We are talking about seniors who will be released by the time they are 70, 75 or 80 years old. As far as their families are concerned, don't worry: they don't have any. They are alone. There will be no social networks or family members waiting for them when they exit the prison gates. The vast majority of these people are men who have been in jail for many years and who will have to re-enter society. If the federal government does not look after them, for example by paying them a reduced old age pension, the provinces will do so under their welfare programs. One way or another, taxpayers will be the ones who will have to help them become members of the community once again. You have to make an application for Old Age Security six months before you are eligible, and there will be many administrative problems. In my opinion, amending the act will only lead to higher costs within the bureaucracy.

I understand that we need to reinstate fairness. I think that the Correctional Service is unfortunately partly responsible for the fact that it did not apply section 78 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. But the article is there and I think we can strike a balance without risking losing the universal right to Old Age Security. The Guaranteed Income Supplement is one thing, and Old Age Security is another. We can distinguish between the two. Senior inmates do not have the same needs as do seniors living in their community. I understand that, and these people agree, but to completely deprive them of their right to an old age pension...

In fact, most senior inmates will go back to their communities as taxpayers and citizens, and we will have to see what kind of transition measures will have to be taken. We will have to find them housing, among many other things. We will have to take this into account. We will also have to take the impact of all of this into consideration.

You talk a lot about dangerous offenders, who are the minority. Indeed, most elderly inmates are not like Mr. Olsen. You are focusing a lot on this minority. I understand that it is shocking. I put myself in the situation of Canadian taxpayers and I understand their anger in this regard, but these people are truly a minority.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Something that I did take out of my brief, because it was going to be too long in my submission, is that we do not believe that Bill C-31 could be unconstitutional, nor does it violate the universality of our old age security system.

I am not a lawyer, nor have we discussed this with a lawyer, as we cannot afford one. However, through research in other countries, we believe--and I realize there's a difference between the U.K. and Canada, but it's simply to give an example--the U.K.'s finding in a particular case that challenged their convention would be similar to a finding in Canada in relation to Bill C-31 being unconstitutional or affecting universality.

We believe that our Constitution affords protection against discrimination, that is, treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations. In this case, a comparison of prisoners with non-prisoners is a comparison of two different factual situations and as such should disclose no discrimination.

[Ruth Gagnon]

I would like to draw your attention to section 78 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That section provides for detainees to help pay for their housing and food costs, in proportion to the benefits they receive. So that is already included in section 78 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In other words, there is already a legislative mechanism allowing the Correctional Service to withhold part of the benefits that an older person might receive in prison, e.g., Old Age Security, and force the detainee to help pay for food and housing costs.

However, to date, the regulation has never been applied or been the subject of any guidelines. Why is that so? I cannot answer that question. Be that as it may, that section of the current Corrections Act could be implemented at any time.

It is said that Bill C-31 is intended to reestablish an element of fairness. Indeed, I believe that the Old Age Security Act, as it relates to incarcerated persons, creates an unfair situation as compared with older people living in society. However, we think that such administrative changes would be far less drastic than to completely exclude incarcerated persons from the social assistance system. An added benefit to that approach is that it would not compromise the principle of universality, while correcting the existing unfairness.

According to the current Correctional Service regulations, incarcerated persons are asked to contribute 30%, but that level could be increased to 40% or 50%, or lowered to 20%. I do not have the answer; that is something that needs to be discussed. That would allow older people to contribute to food and shelter costs, while retaining some of the money for their own personal expenses. We might even consider using part of the money to create a fund that could help them to eventually reintegrate their communities. Obviously, people aged 65 and over who return to the their communities no longer have a home, or anything for that matter, and will need help. Besides, the remainder of the savings could simply be used, as you are proposing—and I think that victims' organizations—

[Ruth Gagnon, Member of the Board of Directors, Director General of the Elisabeth Fry Society of Quebec, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec, Inc., for having invited us to present our position.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-31contain, in our view, serious flaws. On the one hand, the amendments seriously infringe on the principle of universality of our social security programs. Instead of providing solutions, the bill raises many more questions which can only cause concern, to our mind. On the other hand, the bill does not take into account the repercussions it will have on the people it targets, because it falsely assumes that all of their basic needs are already being met by taxpayers.

I will now address the systemic aspects of the bill's repercussions. The Old Age Security Act was created to provide a social safety net for the elderly to help them meet their most basic needs and maintain their human dignity. This act recognizes the vulnerability of the people who are part of this group, which is due to their specific needs and limitations. Therefore, it is precisely because these are elderly people that the bill provides them with protection, and it is solely this characteristic which makes it necessary to have a social safety net, notwithstanding any other attributes these people may have.

The amounts paid out under Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement are not there to only help with food and lodging, which are, of course, very basic needs. These minimal amounts also help people with other needs, such as the purchase of clothing, good and services, which allow them to flourish as human beings.

The principle of the universality of social programs, more particularly social security and the right to an adequate standard of living, have been enshrined in various legal instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

On September 24 last, member of Parliament Jim Maloway of the NDP mentioned that the right of federal inmates to Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement was introduced by the Conservative government of Joe Clark in 1979. Therefore, this right was recognized, as were many other rights and freedoms, and this eventually culminated in the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms three years later in 1982.

Then and now, our Canadian society defended the principle of inclusion and the abolition of discriminatory measures. Yet this bill is the antithesis of these hard-won values. The bill proposes to exclude a group of citizens because they are different—they are inmates—although these citizens have the same needs and limitations as their age-related peers. Even worse, these citizens are in a far more vulnerable situation because of their incarceration.

The universality of Old Age Security is based on the equality of all senior citizens. If we exclude inmates from this social security program, it is not only discriminatory, but it contradicts the very essence of the Old Age Security Act, the purpose of which is to provide the necessary support to a vulnerable group, namely senior citizens. Violating the principle of universality is indeed of great concern. Who will be excluded next? A breach in the principle of universality can open the door to precedents which might lead to further exceptions.

Regarding the consequences for the group in question, not only does the bill violate the principle of universality, but it will also have serious repercussions for elderly inmates. It would be completely false to claim that should they be excluded from the program, the government would meet their needs to the same extent as it does those of other senior citizens.

I will now talk about the situation of elderly inmates. According to the Correctional Service of Canada, these elderly inmates have all kinds of problems during their incarceration, specifically health problems. Because of their previous lifestyle and due to their incarceration, elderly inmates grow old more quickly than Canadians in general. This situation was described by the Correctional Investigator, Mr. Howard Sapers, to the Special Senate Committee on Aging in 2008.

We will not revisit any of those issues.

The Correctional Service of Canada provides certain services to inmates, including housing, food and health care.

Nevertheless, anything that falls outside of the obligations of the Correctional Service of Canada must be provided by the inmate out of his own pockets. This includes anything relating to personal hygiene, or to recreational activities, for instance. The inmate pays for these things. It also includes all kinds of other things, such as toothpaste and clothing, basic personal hygiene products and recreational items. In short, if an inmate wants to have articles for personal use, he must pay for them himself at market rates, or sometimes pay even more, because these institutions only have a single supplier, which eliminates competition.

But the Correctional Service of Canada has implemented programs to help inmates transition into civilian life. Federal inmates can work in jail. Depending on how hard they work, they can earn between $5.00 and $6.90 per day.

The system is therefore based on social reintegration. It strongly encourages inmates to work. However, it is hard to apply this logic to elderly inmates because of their age and health problems. Do we really want to encourage them, or even force them, to work? The vast majority of them generally do not have any savings to help them go back to civilian life. This means that Old Age Security can help them afford food, lodging and basic practical things when they are released.

In fact, paying them Old Age Security is in keeping with the current correctional legislative framework.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence]

Thank you. Good morning to all committee members and everyone present.

My name is Sharon Rosenfeldt and I am president of Victims of Violence. Victims of Violence was started 29 years ago by my late husband, Gary, me, and a few other individuals who had a loved one murdered. We found there were not any services for people like us in our situation. There was no one to turn to for answers in our individual cases, and above all, there was no support, and we felt so alone. We were all thrust into a justice system we did not understand.

The organization grew and grew, due to other individuals contacting us looking for answers in their particular set of circumstances regarding their victimization. We did not have those answers, but we did our utmost to help them find out. Most of the time it resulted in changes having to be made to legislation, mostly to the Criminal Code.

Needless to say, criminal justice issues are many and, for the most part, very complex. Sometimes these issues fall under other ministries, such as the case today.

A significant observation we found was that the issues we were addressing and asking to have change were always quite controversial and sometimes emotional, simply because they were usually affecting the lives of human beings, the lives of the offenders and the lives of the innocent victims of crime.

On behalf of our membership, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present to this committee on the importance of Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I must admit, I do not know how this particular issue got by our organization. However, it did, and I am pleased to have been invited here today to present our views.

Having said that, I would like to thank journalist Peter Worthington, who brought this important issue to the forefront, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation for its work in having 50,000 Canadian citizens sign a petition.

We agree with and are in support of the principle of Bill C-31. The principle of Bill C-31 is clear in that the old age security program is funded through general tax revenues and is designed to help seniors meet their immediate basic needs and maintain a minimum standard of living in retirement. Since a prisoner's basic needs, such as food and shelter, are already met and paid by public funds, there is no reason for Canadian taxpayers to also fund income support for prisoners through old age security benefits.

We do not support the concept of having this bill only pertain to multiple murderers such as Motion No. 507 suggests. We look upon that motion as simply a Clifford Olson solution. That motion does not address the principle of Bill C-31 with which Canadians are outraged.

Clifford Olson's name is only the symptom of the issue we are here discussing today. His name only brought this issue to the forefront. The focus must be on the principle of Bill C-31.

In our research in relation to other countries, we found the U.K. to be the strictest in its legislation of payments of pension to convicted prisoners. The U.K. legislation states that convicted prisoners are not entitled to social security benefits. This includes state pensions even where people have contributed to them for many years. It applies irrespective of whether the prisoner is imprisoned in the U.K. or anywhere else in the world. The general rule is that convicted prisoners in the United Kingdom do not get any social security benefit at all, although payment of certain war pensions and industrial disablement benefits are suspended for up to a year and paid upon release.

Austria, Denmark, Ireland, and Luxembourg also do not pay state pensions during the duration of the prison sentence. Prisoners are entitled to their full pension rights on completion of their sentence.

France does pay state pensions, although its system is somewhat different. The state pension payment is made into the prisoner's account; however, 10% is deducted and allocated to the prosecution, when applicable, and 10% is set apart and goes into the prisoner's release allowance. Prisoners who do paid work while serving their prison sentence pay contributions that are taken into account for calculation of their state pension upon their release.

Greece does pay state pensions to some convicted prisoners. The prisoners who do not qualify for state pensions are those convicted of financial-related crimes such as fraud, theft, robbery, and damage to public property. They are excluded from receiving their state pension.

The Province of Ontario already prohibits inmates from receiving the provincial guaranteed annual income, the Ontario sales tax credit, Ontario sales tax transition benefit, and the northern Ontario energy credit.

In a statement, Minister Bradley stated:

These benefits are designed to help honest, hard working families pay for their necessities, and we are not allowing convicted prisoners to receive those benefits. Taxpayers are already paying for prisoners’ food and shelter.

The executive director of the John Howard Society is quoted as saying that he believes government could make a principled argument for inmates who will probably never leave prison and have all their needs met.

But clawing back OAS is another matter because it is a right of citizenship, and would require carving out an amendment for 'despised minorities'.

We believe that using the Olson angle is just a smokescreen. Citizenship is indeed part of the criteria, and it likely could be considered to be a right. But most seniors who qualify for old age security do not have their basic needs, such as food and shelter, paid for by the taxpayer, nor can they bank their old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, such as senior prisoners are allowed to do today.

I do not believe that senior prisoners are looked upon as “despised minorities”. That is very rude. Rather, it is common sense that one cannot benefit twice at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. That is why Canadians are upset and outraged. If you took the Clifford Olson name out of the headlines, taxpayers would still be upset, simply because they are paying twice. This bill is important for the principles of fairness.

In closing, I will quote from a pensioner who said:

If seniors go to a long-term care facility and cannot afford to pay, the government takes back their pension and gives them a small amount for spending.

Senior prison inmates receive free room and board, and they are allowed to keep or save almost $1,200 per month from their OAS and GIS benefits. As well, they receive the best of medical services, whereby a senior is only eligible for the basic needs.

This senior citizen gets it. That is why Canadians are outraged. They want their tax dollars to be used responsibly, and above all respectfully.

Thank you.

[Kevin Gaudet, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

My name is Kevin Gaudet and I am the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We are a national, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization with more than 74,000 supporters across the country. We have offices in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, two offices in Ontario--Toronto and Ottawa--and recently we've opened an office, we're pleased to say, in Atlantic Canada. That office is located in Halifax.

The mandate of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is to advocate for lower taxes, less waste, and more accountable government. We've been doing this for a long time now; this is a year in which we celebrate our 20th anniversary.

We don't take government money nor do we issue charitable tax receipts. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the supporters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation who made generous contributions to help bring me here today, as we did not accept the offer of the committee for its financial assistance to get here.

I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to speak in support of Bill C-31, what we call the Clifford Olson bill.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has played a large role in getting this bill introduced. I'd like to commend the government and the opposition parties for their rare speed in responding to this issue once it became public.

If I may, I would remind the committee as to how we came to be here today and the role the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has played in this issue. In late March, this last spring, an article appeared in the Toronto Sun in which Clifford Olson had bragged to Peter Worthington that he, Clifford Olson, was receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments courtesy of the federal government and of course courtesy of the federal taxpayer. This amounts to some $1,169 a month, $14,000 a year for him and for every prisoner like him.

As soon as this story ran, my organization started to receive contacts from our supporters expressing great dismay with the situation. They were upset that such a heinous criminal should receive such generous and unnecessary largesse at their expense.

We decided that on behalf of our supporters we would put forth a petition calling on the federal government to cease the provision of OAS and GIS payments to prisoners like Clifford Olson. I must say, I was surprised and overwhelmed with the response. In my four years of involvement with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation I have not experienced that type of explosive response before in the number of petitions we've issued. It only took us about six weeks to receive more than 50,000 signatures on the petition. We've had a few other petitions in our past that have generated substantial support, arguably even more numbers, but to get 50,000 responses in six weeks is I think undeniably noteworthy.

We took the petition to Ottawa, where we were very pleased to present the petition to the Minister for Human Resources and Skills Development, Diane Finley. During our meeting with the minister, she did promise to act on the petition and put forth legislation in short order. She kept her promise and here we are at committee some six months later. I know that's relatively Herculean speed given the usual pace at which Parliament works. I think the government needs to be commended in that context.

Canadians and CTF supporters should be pleased to see some of the comments from Ms. Sgro, on behalf of the Liberals, who advocated speedy passage of the bill, and the qualified support expressed by Mr. Desnoyers of the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Maloway of the NDP. Of course, the CTF is happy again to see the support of the government on this issue.

In my role as the spokesperson for the CTF, I do spend a great deal of time being critical of government. However, when government and politicians do things right, we're mindful of the need to give credit where it is due, and we'd like to give it today in that context and this is just that case.

Parliament is moving quickly to end this injustice in providing these benefit entitlements to those who don't deserve them. Thank you for that. Only in Canada would someone serving 11 consecutive 25-year sentences for murder--I think they are concurrent actually, forgive me--collect more than $1,100 a month for old age security and guaranteed income supplements, but this is the case with Clifford Olson.

With federal and provincial prisoners combined, this could amount to some $7 million a year in payments to those who don't deserve them, for purposes that aren't required--payments that we argue ought to be stopped.

Old age security was created in 1951 and the guaranteed income supplement was added in 1966. They were, and still are, programs designed to help seniors make ends meet so that Canadians with little or no income have enough to live on. Robert Clifford Olson is a Canadian over the age of 65. He turns 70 on New Year's day. He is eligible and receiving his OAS and GIS. He will likely die in jail. He has no meaningful living expenses while there.

According to the most recent statistics on the Corrections Canada website, the average annual taxpayer cost of keeping a prisoner like him, a maximum security male, incarcerated was some $121,294 a year. That is $121,294 a year. That was for fiscal year 2006-07.

Mr. Olson was arrested in 1981 and admitted into federal custody in 1982, 28 years ago. It has cost taxpayers more than enough to keep him behind bars already. It adds insult to injury to pay him to be there as well by giving him important support entitlements that were designed to help seniors make ends meet. These entitlements were never meant to help line the pockets of people like him.

As a result of this petition, there have been a number of media stories and opportunities for people to provide e-mails and comments on websites. Let me bring to the committee one of the comments on one of those websites. It's the voice of a victim of Clifford Olson. Let me share her brief posting. It reads as follows: “I'm the stepmother of one of Olson's victims. I live on the same amount he receives, but I pay for my own food, clothing, and essentials.” She wrote that in capital letters. “Colleen's sister is struggling as a single mom to raise three children, and he wants his money.”

One of the other people posting on the website mentioned that the $2 million should go to families of the victims of his crimes: “Just put it into the old age pension and give us a better income”, she writes. “It's terrible how I have to struggle and pay taxes for him to never have to need anything. I also agree that he's grandstanding once again. How sad that there is even a group of people out there that think prisoners have rights.” Those are her comments. “He took my daughter's right to live, and with her went pieces of our hearts. This is really a very sad society”, she writes.

She points out how outrageous it is that struggling taxpayers are squeezed twice, first to house such criminals and then again by lining their pockets with those entitlements. It's this injustice that has to stop, and Bill C-31 does just that.

Thank you for having invited me today. I'd be pleased to take any questions in due course, should you have any for me.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We will now begin the 26th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on this day of Tuesday, October 19, 2010.

On the agenda, in accordance with the order of reference of Friday, September 24, 2010, we will study Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

I would like to welcome, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Mr. Kevin Gaudet, federal director, and from Victims of Violence, Madame Sharon Rosenfeldt, president. I understand that Madame Ruth Gagnon, member of the board of directors and director general of the Elisabeth Fry Society of Quebec, will not be here until 9 o'clock, but I propose that we begin the meeting right away.

One little note, simply to remind you, is that this part of the meeting will last until 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. until 1 o'clock this afternoon we will go in camera to discuss and hopefully finish our work on the poverty report.

We'll begin with Monsieur Gaudet and Madame Rosenfeldt.

Mr. Martin.

Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government believes that convicted criminals serving time in prison should not be receiving taxpayer-funded old age security benefits that are meant for law-abiding seniors. Canadians already foot the bill for prisoners' expenses and it is grossly unfair for them to be paying for incarcerated criminals twice.

That is why we introduced Bill C-31, the eliminating entitlements for prisoners act. Bill C-31, once passed, will ensure that mass murderers like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton and Russell Williams do not receive these taxpayer-funded benefits.

My constituents in the riding of Oxford have made their opinions loud and clear, as have Canadians all across the country. They want this bill passed. I implore the opposition to work with our Conservative government to get this bill passed quickly. It is the fair and right thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We're ready to begin. We have just over half an hour. Actually, I think these clocks are a little fast, so we have a good half-hour to speak to the officials from the department on Bill C-31.

I welcome Mr. La Salle and Mr. Paquette. Thank you for being here.

I understand that you don't have any opening statements and that you would be prepared just to take questions from the committee. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'll just comment for the record so we know the context. We obviously have Bill C-31, which is a government bill that we need to look at. There is also Bill C-343, a private member's bill. I believe our deadline for when that has to be reported back to the House is November 5, so just keep that in mind, in context.

Mr. Savage, before we go to the other comments, were you thinking you wanted to look at this once all the other things were finished? What was your timeline?