Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I will be splitting my time with Mr. Komarnicki.

Actually, I think what Mr. Comartin raises is a perfect segue to my question. I just want to make sure I understood you on this, Ms. Gagnon. I was struggling a bit to get the translation on my own speaker, so I may have missed this. It sounded as if you were suggesting that the sole criterion for qualification for OAS is one's citizenship. I don't know whether you were saying it was the sole criterion or the primary criterion. Can you clarify for me which one it was?

[Ruth Gagnon]

Regarding Old Age Security, the only criterion required by law is for a person to be a Canadian citizen, to have lived in Canada long enough, at least ten years. To be eligible for a full pension, you need to have lived in Canada for 40 years after the age of 18. There are no criteria with regard to one's economic status, there are only criteria with regard to one's identity, that is, one must be a Canadian citizen. This is in the Old Age Security Act. Look at the eligibility criteria and you'll see.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

All right.

This will be a question for anybody to answer. If length of residency is a reasonable limitation with respect to qualifying for OAS, why can't incarceration be a reasonable limitation?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I would agree, certainly, with that concept. I think the reason we were waiting for an answer from Madame Gagnon was because of the points she was making in relation to the eligibility criteria. But I would certainly agree with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All finished? All right.

Mr. Komarnicki, go ahead.

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

I'll just maybe continue on the universality issue before I turn to another matter. I know that Mr. Comartin has raised that particular issue as well.

What the bill does not do is suspend the old age security pension indefinitely. As a Canadian resident, the incarcerated person maintains the right to the pension, but this right is suspended for a specific period that ends when the person is released. So it's not saying that you're suspending the pension forever; it's only when there is a crime committed in accordance with the legislation.

I gather from at least two of you that you would agree that's a reasonable circumstance for a suspension. Correct?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I do, and further to that, in relation to Madame Gagnon's presentation on what the offender is going to do when he is released from prison, I believe the offender will have the same rights in relation to that pension as any other law-abiding senior citizen--namely, surviving on x number of dollars, whether it's $1,200 or $800 or whatever it is. They would have the same right. They should be given no special status of coming out with a lump-sum bank account.

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

That principally makes the point of why it should survive a constitutional challenge, in my mind and amongst others as well. It really boils down to this: putting victims and taxpayers ahead of criminals. That's the principle behind this.

Maybe I'll just set this up. I know that Mr. Gaudet indicated that you have the cost of the prisoners of about $121,000 a year. I won't quibble on which years or when, but it's a significant amount, and it deals with things like providing a roof over your head, food, and those kinds of necessities.

At the same time, you reference a pensioner who has a hard time getting by on their own, providing a roof over their head, providing food on the table.

I hear you, Ms. Gagnon, when you say that prisoners have rights. That's true. But what about the situation of those who are victims? I can't imagine what it would be like to be a parent who has lost a loved one to a crime committed and who watches as someone sorts of gets a largesse or extra funds while they serve time for that very crime.

Perhaps, Mrs. Rosenfeldt, you can tell us how you might see that or feel that from a victim's point of view.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Well, from a victim's point of view, I was actually quite surprised, I guess as was everybody else. I was shocked. The first thing that entered my mind was, my God, here we go again, a Clifford Olson thing. I feel very hurt inside because I think sometimes we as the community, we as citizens of Canada, have to draw a line between emotionalism and reality. And sometimes I think we have to take the bull by the horn and just simply do the right thing.

Clifford Olson did bring this to the forefront, yes, but there are many people in prison, including the 400. I could name names--Alain Gingras.... I could go on and on, and these crimes are horrendous.

Yes, Clifford Olson murdered 11 children, but there are people incarcerated who are either at the pensionable age or are going to be at the pensionable age. One I can say right off the top of my head is Russell Williams, who's in the news right now. What's going to happen to him in 25 years if we don't get this legislation passed? I can name names, but it really pits victims against offenders, which is not meant to be in any way, shape, or form. We have to use common sense when it comes to these situations, and I think it should be passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We will go to our second round, and just a reminder that this round is actually only five minutes, and that's for questions and answers.

We'll begin with Madam Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think there's no question that almost everyone at this table understands and supports the intent of what we're trying to accomplish, but we also want to accomplish it in a way that is consistent with our charter and a whole pile of other things. So my sympathy is with Ms. Rosenfeldt and others in that situation.

My take is that Olson and others are not the majority of people in jail. His particular crime is not in a majority of situations, fortunately. These people are in a minority. Do you know, of the 400 and others, how many of these people who are in jail for two years might be out in five, ten years? And if they are out in that period of time, for whatever reason, if that's their time served, if they are out in the community, what do they do when they hit the streets and have no money? But then I go back to Madame Gagnon in terms of what they do with the essentials.

What would be the recommendations--any of you--with respect to how we deal with when a person does leave jail and does hit the streets? This last weekend somebody said, too bad, too sad, they'll just have to figure it out. Well, you know what that means sometimes. It means they're on the street and all kinds of other things. I'm just trying to get a handle on this. If these 400 are in for life, we don't have to worry about it. If that's not the case, if there are people coming out, what do we do with them, and how do we address Madame Gagnon's concerns? Those are really my questions, to any one of you.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

To me it's simple. I would suggest they apply for the old age security and GIS benefit. Like any other law-abiding citizen, they have to live on that. I'm not understanding what you're saying.

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

No, they've applied for it. It's been denied because they're in jail, so then when they leave jail they don't have any money.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Am I incorrect in thinking that this bill says they can apply 30 days before they're released? Or is that a different country?

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

No, it does say that, but I guess I'm not sure if the bill then also guarantees that they get a pay cheque the moment they leave. The reason I'm asking that is I know now, when you apply, normally it takes six months to actually get a cheque.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Number one, normally the prisoner is not just released onto the street. If they're serving a term, unless it's statutory release, normally they go into a halfway house and things like that, and they're looked after there. So there would be time for there to be an application made for social security.

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

And if it's a statutory release, that's different, though.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Statutory release is different. Again, whether it's different or not, they should be treated no differently upon release. They should make application for the old age security benefit and GIS and live on that, as any other Canadian citizen. They may be on--

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

I'm not questioning that they will eventually have their pensions; I'm trying to address the potential gap that may occur, to prevent problems.

[Kevin Gaudet]

Ms. Minna, I think you raise an important sentiment, which on the one hand is that you recognize the principal importance of this bill. On the other hand, I also hear an important compassionate tone about wanting to ensure that those people in Canadian society are properly cared for, as we as a society have agreed to. This bill does allow for those individuals to receive the payments both in their first and last month of incarceration, as opposed to depriving them of those particular months.

If I may respond with respect to the savings aspect, let me try to look at it in a different way and see if that takes us anywhere.

I think it's unfortunate that the corollary of that argument would be that someone who doesn't have many expenses while they're incarcerated would have the opportunity to bank that money to then further help themselves afterwards. I think that puts them at a competitive disadvantage, if you will, compared to how we provide for those people who aren't incarcerated. To a certain extent, they actually get an added benefit.

It's not that I'm suggesting prison is fun or wonderful, but those seniors on fixed incomes who are struggling to make ends meet don't have the benefit of being able to bank the extra cash. When those necessities of life are provided by the state, by taxpayers, I think they ought not to have that extra cash.

Now, it's an important question to talk about when people are out.... Whether or not they're prisoners or regular seniors on fixed incomes, I think it's an important conversation that parliamentarians have about how we, as a society, best provide for those people who need to make ends meet.

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

The first and last month's rent that people have to have so they're not on the streets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much. Thank you for that.

Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you for coming.

I think people probably understand that this issue has been very important in the province of B.C.

I'd like to quote a couple of comments from the province to see how...and there is also the fact that in the riding of Richmond I do hear a lot of objections to Clifford Olson collecting OAS and GIS.

Let me quote from the B.C. government whip, Mr. John van Dongen.

The B.C. government is proud to be the first province on record to support the federal government in this action against the unfair allocation of income support to prisoners.

That was on June 2.

Then the Vancouver police chief, Jim Chu--because all of us understand that Clifford Olson probably lives in the Lower Mainland--applauded the bill and said:

“It would be my hope that the innocent victims will no longer feel further victimized by watching their attackers receive old age pensions during their forced retirement from their careers of crime. I'm sure this evolutionary change in legislation will be greeted warmly by the many victims of these criminals.”

Again, this was June 2.

I have a question regarding this. I think some of you have already answered it, but I would like to be able to explain it further. I believe the bill also ensures that a low-income spouse or common law partner of a prisoner will not lose their individual entitlements to old age security payments. That probably protects the criminal's family, who should not be victimized; on that, we agree.

Also, implementation will begin immediately with prisoners in federal prisons. We will work with provinces and territories to also end benefits to prisoners in provincial and territorial institutions. That's something we've been working on.

My question is, do you believe it is fair that prisoners can use the OAS program as a savings plan when that is not the purpose of the program and law-abiding Canadians cannot use it in that way? I'd like you to expand further on that, because the principle behind this whole bill is fairness to the law-abiding seniors.

Just to let you know, 12.5% of total federal expenses goes to OAS and GIS.

Thank you.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Madame.

We'll go to Monsieur Lessard, please, for five minutes.