Human Resources Committee on Oct. 7th, 2010

[Jacques Paquette]

We don't have that information.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I think that would be important, given the fact that if we're going to stop the payment.... I'm trying to understand this, because this is important: it's one thing to deal with the incarcerated person, but then there's the family out there as well, and potentially a spouse and what have you. The reason I ask this is that my understanding is that the spouse, if there is one, would be or might be treated as if they were single by the OAS, so that they wouldn't suffer the financial loss should this cheque, this payment, be stopped.

I guess what I'm asking is, how many of these people are sending money to a family member who needs the income elsewhere? I just want to make sure that we don't punish someone else in our attempt to stop something.

[Jacques Paquette]

What I can say is that the first thing is that there are two elements for the OAS benefit. The first one is the general OAS. This is a monthly payment that is paid to individuals. In the OAS system, there is no reference to children, for example, if that's one of the questions. The OAS is paid to individuals, so to the wife, for example, or to the husband. It's an amount based on their own purposes; in other words, there is no relationship to the fact that they are or are not a couple.

If they are low-income seniors, you have the guaranteed income supplement. In that case only, there is a reference to the fact that they are single or a couple. In that case only, what would happen with this bill is the fact that the GIS for the incarcerated person would be suspended. Then we would consider the other spouse as a single, because the rate for singles is higher than the individual rate for a couple. That would be to minimize the impact.

I should say at the beginning that the purpose of the bill is that the OAS was put in place to support seniors in dealing with their basic needs. That's one of the supports. The fact that a person is incarcerated...the housing and the food are being provided by the government, so in other words, the bill is to avoid the duplication of these funds. That's the--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

This is my last question, as I'm sharing with my colleague. When these people leave incarceration and go back into the community, they have no money saved. They have no money for first and last month's rent or even for a room or to buy food or clothes. What happens to them when they leave?

[Jacques Paquette]

When they leave incarceration...?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

When they leave the--

[Jacques Paquette]

When they are being released--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

When they are being released.

[Jacques Paquette]

--in other words? The pension or the OAS will be re-established as it was.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, but they'll have no money. When they hit the street, they have no money in their pockets to pay rent. They're on the street. What are the chances that they will have to go out and steal or something? They have nothing. Are we making provision for that? That's all I'm saying.

[Jacques Paquette]

My assumption is that we're talking about seniors. They are 65. That would probably be similar to someone who has a job who is incarcerated and the revenue from the job is stopped. Then after, the person is released. The issue here is more that we are avoiding paying twice for the same thing. That's basically the purpose of the bill on the benefits of the old age security.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I will be sharing my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You have about 30 seconds. We probably will have a short second round.

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

Thank you.

I want to come back to the issue of the provinces, but I'm just going to read from the editorial in this morning's Winnipeg Free Press. Like most of us, it's generally supportive of the bill and the fact that people like Clifford Olson, who is cited a lot, obviously shouldn't be entitled to pensions. There are lots of other prisoners who have different circumstances. But what they're speaking about is the 90 days. It says:

Ninety days, however, may be too short a duration to see the move as cost-effective, given the administrative work in processing and the fact that prisoners may lose the house or the apartment if jailed for a couple of months.

I wonder if you can shed light on that issue.

[Jacques Paquette]

You are talking about a shorter period of time. I'm going back to the purpose of the bill, which is to avoid paying twice for the same thing. The question is whether we can do it in a manageable fashion. Under 90 days would not be considered cost-effective, because then it basically costs you as much as what you would save.

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

Cost-effectiveness is the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, sir. Your time is up.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Lessard.

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

Thank you for being here to shed light on things for us and to answer some questions.

First of all, the bill is simple and clear. The basis for it, just as you said a little earlier, is to avoid paying twice. It says nothing about people's income or the contributions they have paid, for example.

I have two questions. Question 1: can you tell me if you have looked at the effects of an inmate having no income prior to his release from prison on his ability to reintegrate into society afterwards? Have you looked at how someone with no income at all can prepare himself to reintegrate into society when he leaves prison?

[Jacques Paquette]

What we have looked at, to an extent, is the precise nature of the program objective. The objective of the old age security program was to provide assistance in meeting immediate basic needs. In this case, the immediate basic needs are mostly housing and food. When people are incarcerated, those basic needs, the housing and food, are met. The old age security program's sole goal is to provide for immediate needs. There are probably other things that can enter the equation. That is why the answer I have to give you is that we are looking after immediate needs. When a person is released, the basic needs are no longer covered by the prison. At that point, the payments that are intended to meet those basic needs start again.

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

So you have not evaluated the ability of a person to reintegrate into society when that person has no income before he leaves prison. That is how I understand it.

I have another question. We want to look at the possibility of the money no longer given to those people being made available to victims. Of course, with 400 people, the fund will not be huge, but, as a principle, could a fund not be established? Could all the savings not go into a fund designed to support victims who are deprived of their income as the result of a crime committed against them?

[Jacques Paquette]

I would like to make it clear that the old age security program is a statutory appropriation. In other words, we have the authority to pay the obligations established by the act. So it is not like other programs that have envelopes that are, or are not, spent. It is about an authority and an obligation; payments are made and, if there are fewer obligations, the amount paid is less. That is why the only amendments being made are to the Old Age Security Act. All the questions that you are raising really are separate and distinct issues that have to be discussed elsewhere.

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

Those issues could be examined by other areas or other departments of government. For example, in Quebec, the Fonds d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels comes to mind as an agency that could become involved. As soon as the government saves some money, it can use it for something else.

Did you discuss using it for victims when you worked on the bill, even if it is not your responsibility?

[Jacques Paquette]

Because that is a matter that depends on other forms of authority and because the Old Age Security Act is mainly based on a spending authority required to meet other obligations, that discussion becomes… It is a long discussion that is completely separate from this one. The Old Age Security Act is being amended specifically in order to meet these objectives. The other discussions should be held separately because the tool is different.