Evidence of meeting #26 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prisoners.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Monsieur Gaudet, I just have a quick question. When the officials were here at the last meeting, they gave us a figure of $2 million to $4 million. That is how much would be saved if those approximately 400 inmates were not receiving the OAS. Where did you come up with the $7 million figure?
10 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The $7 million figure is derived from a simple mathematical calculation. I had thought there were some 500 prisoners in question, each of whom were receiving the maximum $1,159 for 12 months a year. I stand to be corrected. The number will be whatever it is, and I think we all recognize that.... I don't want to say it's a small number, but it's not a billion dollars, that's for sure.
10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Okay.
Ms. Gagnon, you said that, until now, no one has ever been subjected to the measures contained in section 78. Do you know whether any amount has ever been taken, by order of a civil or criminal court, for restitution or for another reason, at the request of a victim?
10 a.m.
Member of the Board of Directors, Director General of the Elisabeth Fry Society of Quebec, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.
I cannot answer that question. I do not know how many 65-year-old inmates have applied for Old Age Security. That figure is not known.
I can say that, as it now stands, the Correctional Service does not use section 78 to get inmates to pay for their food and lodging.
10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Rosenfeldt and Mr. Gaudet, on that same point, I don't know if you've had an opportunity and I don't know if this has been given to you, but do you have any analysis of how many people of the 400 have applied to get the OAS? The assumption is being made all along that all 400 have applied and are receiving. My sense is that this will probably not be the case when we actually get the figures. I simply wonder if you've had an opportunity to look at that.
10 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I honestly don't know. I did ask the department for that information, but they don't seem to know.
10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
We asked the question, too, and they didn't know. We're working on it.
10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
One final point. Quite frankly, as a lawyer, I have problems as to whether this is going to survive a charter challenge, because there are alternative ways of getting at these funds that I think would clearly survive a charter challenge, not only section 78 but court orders, both criminal and civil.
Have any of you,
including you, Ms. Gagnon,
seen from lawyers, constitutional experts in particular, charter experts in particular, an analysis as to whether this would survive a charter challenge?
10:05 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I don't have an analysis I can publicly share. I have spoken with some lawyers, if I'm able to speak based on that information, sir.
My understanding covers a couple of things. First of all, given that these types of programs have already survived legal challenges--the cessation of the provision of such benefits at provincial levels, like welfare, for example, have survived legal challenges already. They've survived any challenge in that context.
I would find it actually quite surprising a) if a challenge was provided and b) if it would actually be upheld. Even if some court in its peculiar decision decided to overturn this type of legislation, I would argue that section 1 of the charter and the Oakes test would apply, and any sane-minded individual in court and judge would decide that this is an approach that ought to be taken by government, sir.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
If I can respond--Ms. Rosenfeldt, you may want to think of this--the provincial plans all have criteria, as opposed to, as Madam Gagnon has said, universality on this one. That's really the difference at the legal level as to why it may in fact be challenged successfully.
10:05 a.m.
President, Victims of Violence
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.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Ms. Rosenfeldt, do you have the name of that case from England?
10:05 a.m.
President, Victims of Violence
I don't have it with me right now, but I can definitely provide that to you.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Perhaps you could send it to the committee and we will pass it around.
Thank you. Those are all my questions.
10:05 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Madam Chairman, may I quickly add a comment?
10:05 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Mr. Comartin, I wonder, too, given that we do have means testing, we already do have established algorithmic reasons under which we do choose to limit or not provide old age security currently, if this could be argued...although I'm not a lawyer.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
That's only the supplement. The base old age, everybody gets. There are no criteria other than you're in the country long enough to receive it.
10:05 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Fine. I'm trying to make a legal argument as a non-lawyer, sir.
October 19th, 2010 / 10:05 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I think there might be ways to do it.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
No, you may be right on the supplement, because there are criteria there, but not on the base one, which, again, would reduce the amount that will be saved.
