Human Resources Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Diane Finley]

Good morning, everybody.

I would like to call to order meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

Further to our study on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, we're very pleased to welcome our minister, the Hon. Diane Finley, as well as officials from the department.

Welcome, and thank you so much for being here. We look forward to hearing from you and to going around the table to ask you some questions.

Minister, at this time, I will turn the podium over to you. You have ten minutes. If you'd like, I could give you a one-minute warning when you're close to your ten minutes.

Thank you.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Bonjour. I am really very pleased to be here to discuss Bill C-31, the Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act.

Canadians were shocked and outraged when it was discovered that mass murderers such as Clifford Olson, who admitted to brutally killing 18 children, are receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. In a few short years, Paul Bernardo is supposed to receive these benefits, as are Robert Pickton and Russell Williams. This not only angers Canadians but is also outrageous and offensive to me, to the Prime Minister, and to our government, which is why, as soon as we discovered this practice, our Conservative government took immediate action and introduced Bill C-31, which puts a stop to incarcerated criminals receiving these benefits.

Madam Chair, the purpose of Old Age Security is to help seniors, especially those living on a fixed income, meet their immediate day-to-day basic needs and maintain a minimum standard of living in their retirement. This is in recognition of the contributions that seniors have made to Canadian society, to our economy, and to our communities.

An inmate's basic needs, such as food and shelter, are already met and paid for by tax dollars contributed by hard-working Canadians. Canadians accept these costs because they want to make sure that criminals stay off the streets, and stay in jail, where they belong. What Canadians and our government will not accept are benefits meant for law-abiding, hard-working seniors going to incarcerated criminals. The OAS program is not a savings plan for prisoners in which they accumulate tax dollars for their own personal use off the backs of hard-working taxpayers. Since an inmate's basic needs are already met by public funds, Canadian taxpayers should not also be paying for income support through OAS benefits. It's grossly unfair to make law-abiding Canadian taxpayers pay twice for incarcerated criminals. In short, Madam Chair, whether someone is in jail for three months or thirty years, the fact is, the taxpayers are already footing the bill for their room and board.

Convicted criminals should not be receiving old age security benefits that are intended to help seniors pay for their basic expenses. Accordingly, Bill C-31 puts an end to criminals receiving OAS and GIS benefits while in prison. It aims to do this in two steps. First, once the bill has passed, it would terminate OAS benefits for prisoners sentenced to more than two years in a federal penitentiary. This would affect approximately 400 inmates and would save Canadian taxpayers approximately $2 million.

The federal government would then work with provinces and territories to sign information-sharing agreements to proceed with the termination of these benefits for incarcerated criminals who are serving 90 days or more in a provincial or territorial prison. This would affect about 600 provincial and territorial inmates per year and would result in savings to taxpayers of an additional $8 million annually, for a total of $10 million per year, if all provinces and territories sign on.

Bill C-31 is in line with what several provinces are already doing. In fact, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories already do not pay social or income assistance to incarcerated criminals. I personally wrote to all of the provincial and territorial ministers to ask for their support and cooperation in signing information-sharing agreements once our bill is passed. I commend British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador for informing me that they support Bill C-31 and will work with our government to get an agreement signed as quickly as possible.

Madam Chair, I feel that it is important to note that we have been very careful to ensure that innocent spouses and common-law partners do not suffer as a result of the actions of their spouse. These innocent individuals will not lose their individual entitlement to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Allowances as a result of these proposed amendments. They will still receive benefits based on their individual income, rather than the combined income of the couple.

Bill C-31 is yet another example of our Conservative government ensuring fairness for hard-working taxpayers. It is yet another example of our government putting victims ahead of criminals.

In a nutshell, this bill is doing what is right and what is fair. Our government believes that Canadians who work hard, who contribute to the system and play by the rules deserve benefits such as OAS. Prisoners do not.

The proof that this bill is the right thing to do can be found in the truly overwhelming support we received for it. In fact, I've probably received more correspondence on this issue than any other. One of the people who touched me the most was a mother whose life was forever altered by Clifford Olson after he brutally murdered her son. Her name is Sharon Rosenfeldt and she is the president of Victims of Violence. When I introduced this bill in the House she said:

I commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for taking leadership on this important issue and ending entitlements for convicted criminals. It's great to see that this government is putting victims and taxpayers first ahead of criminals. The suspension of OAS benefit payments to inmates does just that.

Ray King is another parent whose life was forever changed by Clifford Olson's heinous crimes. When he heard this bill had been introduced he remarked, “It's the best news I've heard in a long time. I'm quite pleased the government has done something.”

These two individuals are part of a long list of people, which also includes David Toner, the president of Families Against Crime and Trauma in Toronto, and Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu, who support Bill C-31. These, ladies and gentlemen, are people who fight for victims and are hard-working, law-abiding Canadians who agree that this bill must be passed.

What has had an equally large impact on me has been the number of everyday Canadians who took the time out of their busy schedules to express their opinions. In just a few short weeks, 50,000 Canadians signed a petition by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in support of this bill, and many Canadians have written to me personally or to their local member of Parliament.

When I first spoke on this bill, I provided a small sample of what Canadians have been saying. There are far too many citations to list them all here, but I want to provide a few more examples so the members of this committee can understand just how strongly Canadians support this legislation.

From Redvers, Saskatchewan:

The taxpayers of this country are providing room, board and medical care for these people who have chosen to disregard the rules of our justice system and the rights of those they have acted against. We should not be providing...pensions.

From Kingston, Ontario:

I am very annoyed that Clifford Olson, a convicted notorious killer, is receiving Canada's Old Age Pension. I am really, really angry about this and want you to change the law.

From Fredericton, New Brunswick:

You are right. [Prisoners receiving Old Age Security benefits] is an insult to his victims and to all Canadians.

From Vancouver, B.C.:

Thank you so much for promptly saying that you will ensure that prisoners will not receive OAS. I have always appreciated [your government's] actions to improve social security programs in a responsible manner that considers taxpayers as well as recipients.

Madam Chair, Canadians across this great country agree that ending entitlements to prisoners is the fair and right thing to do, and they want Bill C-31 passed into law. Canadians know that our Conservative government will always stand up for law-abiding, hard-working Canadians and their families. They know we will use their hard-earned tax dollars fairly, responsibly, and prudently. Bill C-31 is about the responsible use of public funds and the fair treatment of taxpayers. We're taking action to put an end to entitlements for prisoners and to ensure those Canadians who have spent their lives working hard and playing by the rules receive the benefits they deserve.

I hope all the members of this committee will stand up for hard-working, law-abiding Canadians, for what is right and fair, and support Bill C-31.

Merci. Thank you. I'd be happy now to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much, Minister Finley.

We will begin with our first round of questions. Just a reminder, the first round is for seven minutes, and that includes questions and answers. We will begin with the Liberals.

Mr. Savage, please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you for coming. It's always wonderful to have you here with the committee. I think you know that all parties have indicated support for this and that we were all concerned when we found out there was a loophole in the system that allowed people like Clifford Olson to get these benefits.

In fact, our critic, Judy Sgro, had indicated support from the very beginning, and I think we could have moved it through to the committee even faster than it eventually came. But we also want to make sure that there are some people who are not Clifford Olsons who may have families or dependants, and I know my colleague, Ms. Minna, has some questions about that. Nonetheless, we think we need to move this along.

You referenced the provinces in your comments, those who have signed on to this. There are some provinces that haven't, and I wonder what action you're taking to convince them. Perhaps you could tell us what their concerns are with Bill C-31.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There are several who have signed on already. I'm very pleased about that. There are, after all, eight provinces and territories who have this in practice already with their own provincial social assurance programs.

We're working with the provinces and encouraging them to join us in this effort. There are discussions going on at the political and the officials levels to encourage them and address any concerns they may have.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

What are those concerns? What are the issues that they are saying? What are they telling you that they have concerns about that prevent them from signing on now?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

First of all, a lot of them want to make sure before they sign on that the law does pass. They don't want to spend a lot of time saying what if, what if. Some of them have limited capacity to adapt to new programs that may not exist. So they want to make sure in many cases that the bill is passed first.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do you expect that all will sign on?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'm very hopeful that they will, because it is the right thing to do, and Canadians right across the country have written to us by the thousands indicating that this is what they believe to be right and fair.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

One of the questions we've had is that this bill will save somewhere between $2 million and conceivably up to $8 million or $10 million a year. It has been raised, and we've raised this ourselves, why not dedicate that money to victims of violence groups? This is about doing the right thing, and as a corollary benefit of saving taxpayers' money, why wouldn't we dedicate that to victims of crime organizations?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Well, the OAS program—old age security—is a statutory program, and within the act it says that those funds are to be used solely for the support of seniors and to provide their basic benefits.

Our government has done a lot to help victims. We've set up the special Victims Fund, the ombudsman—some $50 million is being invested over a period of four years.

This bill deals exclusively with ending the entitlements. Any other use of funds would be more appropriately addressed in another bill, because we are respecting the statutory nature of the OAS funds that are provided through the general revenue.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I understand that, and I don't want to be too combative here—we're largely on the same page on this--but it just seems to me that it's been done before where governments have made initiatives that balanced off one thing against the other. Because it's not from the same revenue stream or payment stream doesn't mean that one couldn't say let's make sure that we take that and put it toward victims of crime. I just wonder if that's something you might consider going forward as a government.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

At this point my primary concern is getting this bill passed to end the payments that currently exist. That is the number one priority.

In terms of support for victims, we are providing quite a bit through a number of different programs. Again I go back to the fact that OAS is a statutory program, and according to the law as it stands right now, the funds from OAS must go to the support of seniors only.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm going to ask another question. People who are on employment insurance cannot collect benefits while they are incarcerated. Is that correct?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

By and large, that is the rule, yes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

By and large?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Obviously there are going to be certain exceptions.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Section 37 of the EI act indicates that “a claimant is not entitled to receive benefits for any period during which the claimant (a) is an inmate of a prison or similar institution”.

I just wonder if you've done any work in your department to ensure that there aren't prisoners who are receiving employment insurance who shouldn't be receiving it. Are we going to hear another story in a year or so about an egregious criminal who is collecting employment insurance?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I think there are two very big differences here. Number one, according to the law as it stands, prisoners are entitled to receive OAS while they're in prison. They are not entitled by law to receive EI.

We do have a rigorous and very robust audit system within EI to make sure that anyone, wherever they are, whatever their circumstance...if they are abusing the system, for example, claiming funds and EI benefits fraudulently, they will be dealt with according to the law.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So you have taken it upon yourself to ensure that there's nobody collecting EI who's in prison.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That's part of the rules we enforce through a rigorous control system at EI.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you for that.

In terms of the resumption of benefits, when individuals become incarcerated for a period long enough to qualify under this legislation, they automatically would stop receiving their benefits. When they come out, they have to notify Service Canada, so they can resume their benefits.

Will there be some provision, while these people are in prison in their last month or two months, that would assist them, particularly those who might hit the streets without anything, to make sure that they do resume their benefits, to make them aware of their rights to resume benefits?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

We will be notifying them. We're putting together all the details of the implementation. We can't be too presumptuous about the bill passing, but we are looking at those sorts of circumstances.

One of the things that we can do.... First of all, once we have all the necessary agreements in place with the provinces to make it complete, we can have the incarcerating institution notify us. That would be a report on a monthly basis of who's being released, with the information they have.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So that will happen, Minister, because initially the legislation requires the prisoner to notify Service Canada. Will there be something put into the system to assist?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

It's a two-part system. Number one, the institution releasing the individual would notify Service Canada, so we can activate the file. But the individual is also going to have to contact us, primarily so that we can get the appropriate banking information to make sure the individual does get the funds to which he or she is entitled.