Thank you. Good morning to all committee members and everyone present.
My name is Sharon Rosenfeldt and I am president of Victims of Violence. Victims of Violence was started 29 years ago by my late husband, Gary, me, and a few other individuals who had a loved one murdered. We found there were not any services for people like us in our situation. There was no one to turn to for answers in our individual cases, and above all, there was no support, and we felt so alone. We were all thrust into a justice system we did not understand.
The organization grew and grew, due to other individuals contacting us looking for answers in their particular set of circumstances regarding their victimization. We did not have those answers, but we did our utmost to help them find out. Most of the time it resulted in changes having to be made to legislation, mostly to the Criminal Code.
Needless to say, criminal justice issues are many and, for the most part, very complex. Sometimes these issues fall under other ministries, such as the case today.
A significant observation we found was that the issues we were addressing and asking to have change were always quite controversial and sometimes emotional, simply because they were usually affecting the lives of human beings, the lives of the offenders and the lives of the innocent victims of crime.
On behalf of our membership, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present to this committee on the importance of Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I must admit, I do not know how this particular issue got by our organization. However, it did, and I am pleased to have been invited here today to present our views.
Having said that, I would like to thank journalist Peter Worthington, who brought this important issue to the forefront, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation for its work in having 50,000 Canadian citizens sign a petition.
We agree with and are in support of the principle of Bill C-31. The principle of Bill C-31 is clear in that the old age security program is funded through general tax revenues and is designed to help seniors meet their immediate basic needs and maintain a minimum standard of living in retirement. Since a prisoner's basic needs, such as food and shelter, are already met and paid by public funds, there is no reason for Canadian taxpayers to also fund income support for prisoners through old age security benefits.
We do not support the concept of having this bill only pertain to multiple murderers such as Motion No. 507 suggests. We look upon that motion as simply a Clifford Olson solution. That motion does not address the principle of Bill C-31 with which Canadians are outraged.
Clifford Olson's name is only the symptom of the issue we are here discussing today. His name only brought this issue to the forefront. The focus must be on the principle of Bill C-31.
In our research in relation to other countries, we found the U.K. to be the strictest in its legislation of payments of pension to convicted prisoners. The U.K. legislation states that convicted prisoners are not entitled to social security benefits. This includes state pensions even where people have contributed to them for many years. It applies irrespective of whether the prisoner is imprisoned in the U.K. or anywhere else in the world. The general rule is that convicted prisoners in the United Kingdom do not get any social security benefit at all, although payment of certain war pensions and industrial disablement benefits are suspended for up to a year and paid upon release.
Austria, Denmark, Ireland, and Luxembourg also do not pay state pensions during the duration of the prison sentence. Prisoners are entitled to their full pension rights on completion of their sentence.
France does pay state pensions, although its system is somewhat different. The state pension payment is made into the prisoner's account; however, 10% is deducted and allocated to the prosecution, when applicable, and 10% is set apart and goes into the prisoner's release allowance. Prisoners who do paid work while serving their prison sentence pay contributions that are taken into account for calculation of their state pension upon their release.
Greece does pay state pensions to some convicted prisoners. The prisoners who do not qualify for state pensions are those convicted of financial-related crimes such as fraud, theft, robbery, and damage to public property. They are excluded from receiving their state pension.
The Province of Ontario already prohibits inmates from receiving the provincial guaranteed annual income, the Ontario sales tax credit, Ontario sales tax transition benefit, and the northern Ontario energy credit.
In a statement, Minister Bradley stated:
These benefits are designed to help honest, hard working families pay for their necessities, and we are not allowing convicted prisoners to receive those benefits. Taxpayers are already paying for prisoners’ food and shelter.
The executive director of the John Howard Society is quoted as saying that he believes government could make a principled argument for inmates who will probably never leave prison and have all their needs met.
But clawing back OAS is another matter because it is a right of citizenship, and would require carving out an amendment for 'despised minorities'.
We believe that using the Olson angle is just a smokescreen. Citizenship is indeed part of the criteria, and it likely could be considered to be a right. But most seniors who qualify for old age security do not have their basic needs, such as food and shelter, paid for by the taxpayer, nor can they bank their old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, such as senior prisoners are allowed to do today.
I do not believe that senior prisoners are looked upon as “despised minorities”. That is very rude. Rather, it is common sense that one cannot benefit twice at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. That is why Canadians are upset and outraged. If you took the Clifford Olson name out of the headlines, taxpayers would still be upset, simply because they are paying twice. This bill is important for the principles of fairness.
In closing, I will quote from a pensioner who said:
If seniors go to a long-term care facility and cannot afford to pay, the government takes back their pension and gives them a small amount for spending.
Senior prison inmates receive free room and board, and they are allowed to keep or save almost $1,200 per month from their OAS and GIS benefits. As well, they receive the best of medical services, whereby a senior is only eligible for the basic needs.
This senior citizen gets it. That is why Canadians are outraged. They want their tax dollars to be used responsibly, and above all respectfully.
Thank you.