Evidence of meeting #29 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 benefits.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Yes, it could be done in less than four weeks. I mentioned that to make the point that we want to help them immediately. However, they do have to apply in person because we have to verify their identity and banking information, for example.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much again, Minister Finley, for being with us today. We understand that you need to go at this time, but your officials will stay to continue the round. So thank you for being here.
If the officials are all right with staying, we will probably continue to the round and ask you a few more questions.
I'd like to continue with the round as it is scheduled, because it will give the NDP a chance to ask a question as well.
We'll now go back to the Conservative Party.
Mr. Komarnicki, do you have any questions for the officials?
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you.
Once again, thank you for attending.
Obviously, we've heard from you already in some measure.
I know Mr. Comartin from the NDP raised the issue of universality of old age security early in the proceedings, I'm assuming with the understanding that the pension should not be taken away from prisoners. But as I mentioned to the minister—
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
A point of order. That's a false statement. I never made that statement, Chair. We should not be taking the pensions away.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
My position has been quite clear, Madam Chair, that this methodology—
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you.
I would just ask that we all refrain from.... If there are false statements, obviously we should not be making them. Let's stick to the bill. You'll have a chance in a couple of minutes, and then if you would like to argue, you're certainly allowed to use your time to do that.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I think this is important. This is the only meeting we've had on this bill that has been in Centre Block and televised, and it seems to me there's a strategy for spreading false information. Because of the uniqueness of that, I think we have to reiterate that false statements shouldn't be made at committee. That's all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Mr. Savage, when you have your chance to speak, you can clarify your position, if there is any misunderstanding on the point with different members of the committee.
I would ask Mr. Komarnicki to please continue.
A point of order, Monsieur Lessard.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
On a point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, the time for raising a point of order is not when he is about to begin his speaking time—because he has three or five minutes for that. A point of order is intended to allow someone to rectify something that is inappropriate with respect to the way the committee conducts its business. We were victims of that twice in the House of Commons yesterday, and this morning, colleagues made false statements twice, taking advantage of the fact that this is a public meeting. So, this is something that is not only inappropriate, but unfair and, in particular, completely false.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Mr. Lessard, we are in the middle of questioning right now. Sometimes there are different opinions as to what someone has said and what someone else has said.
I'm ruling this is debate at this point. I'm asking that we finish the questions, and when you have a chance to ask a question, you can clarify your position.
I would ask that Mr. Komarnicki continue, and we will continue the time.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The record will speak for itself, and what I say is what I understand it to be. The issue of universality was raised; that issue was not questioned. The logical conclusion that can flow from that is that the pension be paid to everyone, including prisoners. That's not a point of debate.
But my point is this legislation doesn't suspend the old age security pension indefinitely. The incarcerated person maintains the right to the pension, but the right is suspended for a specific period that ends when the person is released. So there's a difference, and it's an important difference.
So given the way the legislation is drafted, does it address the constitutional concerns? To those who would raise the issue of universality, and have raised it with this committee, does it address the issue of the constitutionality of this bill?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I'll provide the first part of the answer, and maybe Mr. McCombs will answer the second part.
The first thing is there are two components of universality for the OAS: OAS and GIS.
GIS is not available to everybody. This is income tested, so it's targeted to low-income seniors. On that aspect there is already a very clear selection criteria.
For the OAS, some criteria are also established: age, legal status, residence in Canada, and so on. In that specific case, the person would remain eligible, but the payment would be suspended while the person was incarcerated and then would be reinstated. In other words, when the person is released, the person will not have to reapply; the payments that were suspended will be restarted.
I will leave Mr. McCombs to comment on the constitutionality.
Senior General Counsel and Head, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
The legislation doesn't take away pension eligibility. The prisoner is still eligible; it's just a matter of suspension during the time period the prisoner is incarcerated, and the door is open when the prisoner is released to have his or her pension benefits restarted.
It's the same thing in terms of eligibility during the time they are incarcerated. They can apply; they just won't receive them until they're released.
So it's completely within the pension system, and it's a measure that's designed to be within the pension system.
