Human Resources Committee on Oct. 7th, 2010

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

And who did you deal with at Corrections Canada?

[Jacques Paquette]

I dealt with my counterpart, the assistant deputy minister there. We dealt with Correctional Services as well as with the Department of Public Safety.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is the government considering using the principle that's being applied here not being one of punishment but one of simply not having people get double compensation? For people who are in long-term care and covered by provincial plans, is there consideration being given to extending the principle to those people?

[Jacques Paquette]

That was not considered at this point. We looked only at incarceration.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

So similarly, our veterans who may be in long-term veterans hospitals, you did not consider applying the same principle to them.

[Jacques Paquette]

No.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Was there any discussion? Was there a paper prepared on the impact on the universality of our pension programs and the impact this would have on them?

[Jacques Paquette]

There would not be an impact on the universality, because people we're talking about here are eligible, but their payments are being suspended while they are incarcerated. When they come back the payments are being reinstated, so they are still eligible then as clients.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Do you know how many of the 400 would be people who would already be receiving OAS when they went into custody?

[Jacques Paquette]

Because we did not look at individual cases, we don't have that information. The moment we have the information sharing agreement with Correctional Services that is referred to in the bill--if the bill is passed--we will be able to start working on individual cases. That's the case.

The information you're asking about is more related to individuals, and we don't have access to these specific cases at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think everybody probably understands why this is close to our hearts. I come from the province that actually has been telling its representatives that we cannot allow the previous action that is going on.

I think we all agree that Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules deserve taxpayer-funded government benefits such as old age security, but definitely it is wrong and obviously unfair that prisoners who break the law should also receive the same entitlements.

To our government public servants here, thank you very much for coming. You have repeated again that prisoners already have their basic needs met at the expense of taxpayers and Canadians should not be paying again by providing them income support through OAS.

These proposed changes would ensure that mass murderers such as Clifford Olson do not receive entitlements while in jail. You all know that he murdered eleven children and altered the lives forever of the victims' families. This is close to our hearts.

Are there any other federal payments extended to criminals while they are in prison, and if so, which ones?

[Jacques Paquette]

Yes, there are other payments. For example, the employment insurance program seizes payment of benefits to individuals when they are incarcerated. Of course the justification is clear, as people are not available to work. There are also others. An example would be the Income Tax Act, which would suspend the eligibility of individuals for the GST rebate when they are incarcerated. So there are these examples in the federal system, among others, yes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much.

What about the provinces? Are there any provinces or territories in Canada that suspend any payments to incarcerated criminals, and if so, which ones?

[Jacques Paquette]

Yes, there are. According to our information--and of course we're talking about seniors--the provincial authorities would deal with other categories of age. There are eight provinces and territories that suspend their social assistance when people are incarcerated. They are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'd like to share my time with my colleague Ed.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you very much.

I find it remarkable that Mr. Comartin would try to somehow compare people in prison with long-term-care people or veterans. I think the very important distinction is that they have not committed a crime against others in society.

I'll ask you whether there are any international precedents. You could maybe mention that.

I do want to read from a letter from a constituent of mine, who wrote from Redvers, Saskatchewan, and perhaps summarized it well:

The taxpayers of this country are providing room, board, and medical care for these people, (and that's part of the premise, I take it, behind the bill), who have chosen to disregard the rules of our justice system and the rights of those they have acted against. We should not be providing pensions.

In other words, this is not meant to be a savings account or a way of saving, particularly for those who have committed offences.

Is that the general principle behind this bill? Secondly, is there precedent for this on an international basis?

[Jacques Paquette]

Yes, other countries have a similar provision in place, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. So they're doing the same thing. They are preventing pensions being paid to people who are being incarcerated.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I find it remarkable, and I think Canadians would perhaps find it outrageous and shocking, that someone who would commit a heinous crime and that those who would commit murder, and particularly multiple murders, would, for their lifetime, accumulate a pension. What was the basis for that in the first place, and how is this changing that?

[Jacques Paquette]

Do you mean why it was still happening?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes.

[Jacques Paquette]

I would say that the main challenge was to find a way to avoid any adverse impact on the spouse and especially on allowances. So what we have here in the proposed bill is that there are some measures that are being taken to minimize as much as possible this impact. That's really why this bill can work in these circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I think we will have time for one more very short round, a three-minute round, and we'll begin with Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you, and thanks again to the witnesses.

The savings, you tell us, will be somewhere between $2 million and $4 million a year. Correct?

[Jacques Paquette]

At the federal level.