Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

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

Thank you.

Ms. Gagnon, I think you are on the right track. As Mr. Rosenfeldt said at the beginning, not all long-term inmates have committed murders. They may have committed other types of crimes. The Olsen case gives rise to a lot of sensationalism, but not everyone is, in fact, an Olsen.

Correct me if I am wrong. You said that section 78 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act could fulfill the same purpose. I have not read it and, since it has never been applied, I have the impression that the people sitting around this table are also discovering its existence for the first time. Can this section achieve the same results? In other words, could the Correctional Service decide that an inmate who has an income must pay for part of his food and lodging out of his Guaranteed Income Supplement, as well as out of his Old Age Security?

[Ruth Gagnon]

I imagine that the Correctional Service will have to make a decision with regard to that matter, and it will no doubt say that a small part of the pension will have to cover the inmate's needs, other than food and lodging, namely the cost of the cell itself. Please understand that inmates have to be clothed and have their basic needs looked after.

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

I will have to interrupt you. I think this has already been said. I apologize.

[Ruth Gagnon]

Indeed, one could certainly take that argument to its logical conclusion.

[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.

[Kevin Gaudet]

I'm not familiar with article 78. I thought there had been a provision that would allow for provinces, especially, to.... I'm happy to learn this. If anything, my organization has been advocating for ages that we should be charging prisoners for their incarceration, and if we already have an existing legislative mechanism in place that we can deprive them of $1,169 a month and perhaps even charge them beyond that because their incarceration costs them $121,000, I'm all over that.

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

Unless I'm mistaken, you are telling me that, regardless of whether we use section 78 or the bill, what counts is that we achieve the same result.

[Kevin Gaudet]

I'm not so sure. I have to research the section. I cannot give you an answer now. After the meeting, I will ask Ms. Gagnon if she can do some research for me.

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

My question is for you, too, Ms. Rosenfeldt.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Komarnicki, you had another question?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, five minutes. Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd first like to thank all of you for coming before us and sharing your thoughts with the committee.

I want to make it known for the record and for my colleagues that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was founded in 1990 in Saskatchewan, according to the notes I have, which is of course singularly important for some of us who come from Saskatchewan.

[Kevin Gaudet]

We're still headquartered there, sir.

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

There you go. So that's an important note there for the record.

The bill is about a matter of fairness. I think we can achieve that through this particular bill to ensure that the families or those closely related are not hard done by and that they are actually able to receive what they had before the incarceration, and perhaps more. So there is an element of compassion to the families, at the same time respecting the points of view of the victims of that particular prisoner, but others as well. This doesn't just apply to victims of the prisoner, but it's victims generally who are affected by what they see.

And in Kevin's case it was interesting. I wonder if the reaction of the Canadian public doesn't have a lot to do with Mr. Savage wanting to swiftly pass this bill and others climbing on board. I'm not sure if it was a petition you had posted, but I gathered from you that the speed at which you received significant numbers of petitioners and their response in such a short period of time was indicative that this touched a nerve or a raw spot with Canadians.

Maybe I can ask you specifically, what do you think the reaction of the Canadians was to the news that they had heard that there were prisoners actually receiving old age security? And by the reaction you got to the petition, what was your sense of what Canadians were trying to say?

[Kevin Gaudet]

Let me speak for the supporters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; I won't presume to speak for Canadians more broadly, sir. As a representative of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I can tell you that the 50,000 came from more than just supporters of my organization.

I think there were a couple of things involved. Perhaps the first and foremost one would be the general revulsion and repulsion with anything to do with Mr. Clifford Olson. The perception that he might be deriving a benefit or a nicety of any kind frustrates people.

I would probably expand that more widely and express the point that there might be a general sentiment among my organization that we as a society can be extremely generous to those people who are incarcerated, and that sometimes we forget to be mindful of those people who pay for the lifestyle they have, not to mention that we have obligations--nobody's remiss on that. Sometimes there isn't sufficient mindfulness of the balance required for their needs and the needs of those who pay for it, sir.

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

Thank you.

I'm just going to conclude with respect to a comment made by Ms. Rosenfeldt. I know you have said many times that you don't have the answers for the victims, but you're there for them, especially when they have nowhere else to turn. So we certainly appreciate the work that you do.

Thank you very much for being here.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Thank you.

Could I just say one last thing to the MP in relation to section 78? I am definitely going to check on this.

I was on the review panel that did the review. The mandate was to do a complete review of the Correctional Service of Canada. There was a five-member panel created and I was part of that panel. We did a full-scale review of the Canada Revenue Agency.

Somehow, if the intent of what Madame Gagnon is saying is that we missed it, that would be a huge miss. I'm definitely going to have a look at it, because we reviewed it, and the point that part of a pension could be used to pay for their living expenses didn't come up in any way, shape, or form. That's a new one to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I certainly think that whole topic generates a lot of interest around this table, and probably with Canadians, so I think it's an important part of this discussion.

Sorry, Mr. Comartin, do you have a question?

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

I know that both Madame Gagnon and Ms. Rosenfeldt didn't get to say all of what they had prepared to say, so I'm just wondering if they could provide us with their written statements. Those will have to be translated, I think in both cases, but could they then be circulated amongst the committee, in case there are additional points that we haven't brought out?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

That's a good idea.

Would the witnesses be all right with providing their statements to the committee, and then we can pass them out to the committee members?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I'm sorry, I knew I had to submit it, and I didn't. I brought an extra copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

That's fine. We can do it now at this point, if that would be all right.

[Ruth Gagnon]

You already have six copies, which I gave you when I arrived.