Human Resources Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

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

There's another point—and I know Mr. Lessard has raised this--in regard to using section 78 to accomplish taking the funds away from the prisoners to allow for the fact that they're getting free room and board while they're in prison. As I understand it, section 78 ties into regulation 104 of the corrections and conditional release regulations, and it has a number of conditions in talking about income. It talks about clawing back, if you want to call it that, 25% of the inmate's total income, but then it has a condition that exceeds a certain amount, and then it goes back and limits what that is.

So number one, it would need to be dealt with in some fashion, because it doesn't address it. Would you agree with me?

Secondly, the correctional official raised the issue that inmates may not have their old age security or supplement arriving at the prison, so the section can be applicable; they could circumvent it simply by having it deposited elsewhere.

Can you comment on those two points?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

If you could, do it quickly because the time has expired for your questions

Thank you.

[Jacques Paquette]

I would say the way you describe the challenges is correct. When we look at section 78 and compare it to the objective we wanted to achieve, it was a very complicated and limiting tool that the Correctional Service had in its hands. That's why our conclusion was that what is being proposed is the most direct, efficient, and clean way of doing it. That's why this bill was presented as the best way to achieve the objective we had in mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Madam Folco, you have five minutes.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I would like to come back to certain aspects of the agreement, or to questions the minister asked with respect to sharing information with the provinces and territories. Through the minister, that question has already been answered.

However, given that the system is extremely complicated for the average person, could you explain, in relation to Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, exactly how this information sharing would work, specifically between the Government of Quebec and the federal government? What purpose would be served by this information sharing?

[Jacques Paquette]

It would work the same way as what we are considering doing with federal correctional services. There would be an equivalent agreement signed with correctional services in Quebec. On a most likely monthly basis—that is what we are suggesting at the federal level—we would receive information from them regarding anyone aged 65 and over serving a prison term, with enough information for us to be able to access our data banks, identify the correct individual and suspend the pension benefits.

Similarly, when people are released, we would receive a report—information would be provided to us. At that point, once inmates are released, we could begin the process of restoring their pension benefits, as provided for in the bill. People would have to go to a Service Canada counter to confirm their banking information and so on, which would allow us to expedite the benefit payments, if we have the necessary data for direct deposit, for example.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Both my colleague, Ms. Minna, and myself put a question to both Correctional Service officials several days ago, and the minister earlier today, regarding an inmate's dependents. I was thinking, not of children attending university, but rather, of people who are disabled for life.

To your knowledge, do correctional services in the provinces and territories have access to that kind of information—in other words, that an inmate has dependents who are likely to retain that status for a very long time?

[Jacques Paquette]

I will give you a two-part answer. First of all, I do not know whether they have that information, and the Correctional Service of Canada does not seem to have been able to answer your question.

As far as we are concerned, information about the spouse is important because, for Old Age Security, and particularly, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, there is a difference depending on whether they are single or a couple, because the rate for the Supplement is adjusted accordingly. So, that is essential information.

Overall, the Old Age Security Program—and you have heard me say this before—does not take into account the fact that there may or may not be children. This benefit is only intended to support seniors so that they can fulfill their immediate needs. Therefore, under no circumstances are children considered under the program. As the minister already said, there are federal and provincial programs that specifically address children.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I just wanted to add something, but unfortunately, the minister has just left, although I suppose she will have an opportunity to read the comments made here in committee. The minister's last answer to my question was similar to what you just said. However, I want to raise one objection. There is no doubt, as my colleagues on this side of the table have stated, that we support Bill C-31 and would like to see it pass as quickly as possible. There is no doubt about that.

What we are trying to ascertain—and I am referring here specifically to my colleague and myself—are the potential financial repercussions for the dependents of these individuals. In other words, it's perfectly normal to punish the person who committed the crime, but what we are trying to find out is to what extent it is appropriate to also punish family members of the inmate who are financially dependent on him or her. That was the point of the question that Ms. Minna and myself asked earlier.

[Jacques Paquette]

With your permission, I will provide a quick answer.

There are two components. The spouse that is not incarcerated continues to receive Old Age Security benefits; that is not in question. As regards the Supplement that the spouse not serving a prison sentence can receive—the Supplement is paid to low-income seniors—we have, in fact, considered adjusting that amount. At the present time, a couple is entitled to a certain amount. Two amounts are combined to provide an amount that will allow them to meet their needs. When it is a single person, the amount is slightly higher because there are additional costs involved when living alone.

With respect to the spouse who is not incarcerated, we will consider the circumstances and the amount of income, which might result in a higher Guaranteed Income Supplement for the spouse that is not in jail, the idea being to ensure that any negative impact is minimized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll go to Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've had section 78 raised a couple of times here. I want to return to that. Presumably it's being raised for two purposes. One, I think, is the notion that the cost of incarceration can somehow be covered by section 78. I think we've heard testimony here that the average cost of incarceration is somewhere between $90,000 and $100,000 per inmate per year. I'm not sure that even 30% of the income that comes to a penitentiary for an inmate is likely going to recover the cost of incarceration. Is that a fair statement, as you would understand it?

[Jacques Paquette]

I think the commissioner provided some information on this. I'm not the specialist on the cost of incarceration.

A main source of information for me would be Statistics Canada, but I think your numbers are most likely close to the reality.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Presumably, the implicit extension of arguing that the cost can somehow be recovered is that any other income could then be banked. I think that's where that's going.

Madam Chair, I'm going to pass my time, because I can't ask more questions on section 78. I will defer to Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for coming over.

I wanted to ask a question about the children of the victims, because the opposition just raised a question about the children of the prisoners. My question is about the children of the victims. Do we have social programs to help those families? That's number one.

Second, I don't know whether everybody is aware of the fact that Clifford Olson, before he was actually sentenced or prosecuted, claimed $10,000 for each of 11 children's bodies whose whereabouts he told police. This money went to his family. That is history, and that was outrageous.

This bill only deals with the person himself. You have explained very clearly that the bill ensures that a low-income spouse or common-law partner will not lose his or her individual entitlement to old age security payments. Can you further comment on this part about families of the prisoners not being affected by this?

[Jacques Paquette]

With regard to old age security, the spouse will receive the full entitlement as for any other eligible person. If the person has other revenues, that's something else. If they don't have any other revenues, that's when the income supplement, the GIS, kicks in. It means there are no other revenues. In that case, as I explained, and depending on the income of the person, we would ensure that they would be calculated on a single rate instead of a couples rate. That would lead to an increase, most likely, of the revenues for the spouse. That will recognize the condition of the spouse in this specific situation.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

For law-abiding citizens and the seniors who are receiving OAS and have families that need more support, there is also provision for them. Am I right about that?

[Jacques Paquette]

No. For the OAS, as I said earlier, whether or not there are children is not taken into consideration. If there are needs for children, there are other federal programs--and provincial programs, by the way--to support children in these circumstances. These will continue, of course, to be available for children. They are not interrelated with whatever measures we would take in the context of the OAS.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Comartin.

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

Given some of the exchanges we've had today, let me make a comment.

What's really going on here is that the government is obsessed with punishment. I was just reading one of the quotes from Minister Finley this past spring when she said, referring to prisoners who are eligible for OAS, that they should be getting punishment, not pensions. It's that mindset, Madam Chair, that is the problem here.

If we had taken a much more holistic.... If we take the Russell Williams case, since we're dealing with individual cases here, Mr. Watson is wrong. If you look at the opportunities we had here for amending both the OAS and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, specifically section 78, we had the opportunity to deal meaningfully with claims from victims. Think of those women who were raped by Mr. Williams. Think of the families of the women who were killed. If these funds had been available, we have existing laws that would have....

And there are more funds. Mr. Williams is eligible for a pension of $65,000 per year. If that fund had been made available--which it is not now--to the victims, then we actually could have compensated them financially for the lost time that the families are going to suffer, for the counselling they're going to need, and for the other expenses that we know victims incur. If this government were really meaningful in wanting to deal with victims, that's one of the ways. They had an opportunity to do it here. Are we going to be faced with another piece of legislation at some point in the future? Maybe.

Let me turn to one question. It's not fair to you, probably, to ask this question, but I want to get it on the record. I would like to have asked it of the minister. Was there any consideration given to expanding section 78 so that we could have got at other resources--CPP, OAS, the supplement, private pensions, and private assets--when people were incarcerated, especially for those kinds of crimes?

[Jacques Paquette]

In our discussions with Correctional Services--and that was my responsibility--what we were concentrating on was the case of the OAS and how we can prevent OAS being paid to people while they are incarcerated. When we looked at section 78 and at other means, and some of the limitations that section 78 has as well, our clear conclusion was that Bill C-31 was the most effective and cleanest way to achieve that objective.

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

Did you take the victims into account?

[Jacques Paquette]

That's another question that I will come back to.

The other issue is one that I think the commissioner raised as well when he was here. His concern was that if Correctional Services starts to go after a lot of funds, they would spend more time trying to collect money than in pursuing his main mandate.

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

Mr. Paquette, you just had to make the funds available. I don't want Corrections Canada to be turned into a collections agency. But all you needed to do....-

I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you. I wish the minister was here so I could pick on her. I wish the Prime Minister was here so I could pick on him.

You didn't have to turn Corrections Canada into a collections agency. What you had to do was to make the funds available--not just government funds either, but private assets. An amendment to the corrections act would have done that.

[Jacques Paquette]

I would say that's a much broader debate. In that context, what we concentrated on was the fact that they were public funds--OAS--that were paid to people who were incarcerated while their basic needs were looked after.