Human Resources Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

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

I don't have any problem, Mr. Paquette. It's a very efficient mechanism for the department and for the government, but it doesn't do anything for the victims.

I have one more comment. Mr. Watson, actually, if you do the calculation, if you had made the funds available from Mr. Williams, you would have been able to get up to the 30%. But you also have the right to change that 30% up to 50% or even 100%. It simply would have required an amendment to section 78 of the corrections act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Just a reminder, please direct comments through me as the chair. Thank you very much.

We have time for one more round. It will be a three-minute round, so we'll begin with the Liberals.

Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I don't normally take two rounds, but per your recommendation, I do want to clear the record.

There is something happening here. We've had a number of hearings on this bill and they've been pretty cooperative. We've asked our questions. All of a sudden we come to the Centre Block and we're televised and we start to get some allegations from the government that need to be corrected. I've corrected one of them already.

But the idea of Mr. Watson, who said that the opposition is out talking about the banking of OAS for prisoners.... The comment about Mr. Comartin's position, which I think he's cleared up....

It's important that people understand that this bill could have been dealt with faster. In fact, it was on March 26 that there were media reports that Clifford Olson was getting a pension. We were all outraged by that. On that same day the minister made comments in the House, saying that she would be bringing forward a bill very quickly. It wasn't until June 1 that Bill C-31 was introduced for first reading. There's a big gap there. We had indicated in that time that we supported the intent of Bill C-31. We intended to support the bill. We went further to suggest that, in our view, there should be money that is recouped through this bill that should go to victims of crime.

Let's not forget that the government has cut the budget of the grants for the victims of crime initiative by 41%, the contributions for the victims of crime initiative by 34%. They fired the federal ombudsman for the victims of crime. We think this money should go to the victims of crime.

I agree with Dr. Wong when she talks about people who have been harmed by people who are now in prison.

So I think it's just important that we understand that the opposition is doing their due diligence on this bill, but we are not stopping it. We are not opposing it. We are just trying to make sure that this bill does what it's intended to do, as we have done from the beginning, and as our critic on this issue, Judy Sgro, has done vigilantly since March 26 when these reports were made public.

That's what I want to say, Madam Chair.

If I have time, I'll give it to Madam Minna.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right. One minute, if there is a question from anyone else from the Liberal side.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay. I'll be very quick.

My question, actually, Madam Chair, is very simple. The bill makes the assumption that the incarcerated person and the spouse are both old people. My question is very simple. If the spouse is not an old woman, has children, and/or there is a disabled dependent person, will the OAS still be cut, or will it be sent to the family? I'm asking.

[Jacques Paquette]

There are two situations. If you're saying that the incarcerated spouse is over 65, so therefore receiving OAS, and the non-incarcerated spouse is younger than 60 years old, for example, the OAS of the incarcerated person will be suspended, yes.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

So then the family also loses the income that they would have had and is punished as well. That's the point I'm asking about. That's why I had hoped that some due diligence had been done on this bill prior to sending it in.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, will make some comments. I know Mr. Comartin has indicated he would like to even go beyond what this bill is. How about getting behind this singular, narrow bill and getting it through really quickly? That would be a good thing to do.

I know that under the lights the opposition has taken a milquetoast approach to this. But there were concerns raised about money being there for prisoners in their accounts when they leave prison as opposed to taking all of the funds away through a bill like this. And that's just fact.

In terms of how long it's taking to get it done, the Liberal Party had 13 long years to get it done and this is being done in less than 13 weeks. I would say let's go to clause-by-clause right now and get it done right here and now while we're talking.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Chair, we could have done clause-by-clause by now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Ladies and gentlemen, and Madam Minna, when you're speaking, no one is interrupting you, but it seems like that's what's happening now. So if you could please refrain from interrupting, that would be great. Thank you.

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

Let's not try to point the finger one way or the other, and let's move this thing through. I don't want to let that go uncontested because it's a bit of bunk.

Now for some specific questions. Just to ensure that spouses of inmates aren't harmed by this, the corrections officials have indicated that there will be a process in place to find out who the spouses are. But when you're dealing with GIS, is it not based on the income of the previous year, and how are you going to collect that information in a relatively short period of time to ensure that the adjustments are made quickly and appropriately, so that those get into the hands of the people who do need them? Could you maybe address that point.

[Dominique La Salle, Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

The OAS program provides individuals with what's called an option. So rather than waiting to get data from CRA on the level of income, one can make a declaration and exercise the option of indicating that you will indeed have lower income for the current year and have an immediate adjustment made to your GIS.

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

So that would be made within the month following incarceration, and you'd be able to have that information?

[Dominique La Salle]

Yes.

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

Then with respect to the notification of the prisoner's release, will you be able to obtain that information in a timely fashion and be able to utilize additional information to ascertain the whereabouts or address of the person released?

[Jacques Paquette]

Yes. That's the purpose of the information sharing agreement we will have, to be able to access the appropriate information that we need to be sure, first of all, that we are informed of incarceration or release, as well as any information required to make sure that we deal with the right person, so identification.

The other information we need that will be useful is the banking account information. That's in fact why we ask the person who is released to contact Service Canada to give them the banking account information. If we are able to do direct deposit, we will be able to accelerate even further the process to allow them to receive their pension.

These is the type of information we will need to accelerate the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Monsieur Lessard, you have three minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Paquette, I want to thank you for that last answer. We have been trying to find something out for quite a while, and you just gave the answer to Ms. Minna. Indeed, you acknowledge that when an inmate has a spouse under the age of 60 or 65—whatever the age may be—and still has dependent children, the person serving a jail term will not receive an Old Age Pension, and will therefore not have any income.

One of our concerns is to ensure that this bill does not create victims. There is a desire that has been expressed that I find deplorable. Some people seem to want to punish the inmate even more. As Mr. Comartin was saying, there is a desire to ensure that inmates are making their contribution because they receive room and board, and so on, since they are already serving a jail term. We are in favour of that.

However, we are not seeing any desire to support the victims. Not only are the victims not receiving any support, but there is a danger of victimizing other people, specifically the dependents, as Ms. Minna was saying earlier.

I am very surprised to discover that there are no statistics indicating how many dependent children could be affected by this measure. That is quite surprising. I understand that you don't have access to that data for people serving sentences in provincial penitentiaries, but you surely have them for people in federal institutions. You have the inmate's file. You know everything about that inmate. You even know the colour of his underwear.

So, how is it that you don't know whether he has dependent children, how old those children are, whether they are young or have a disability, and so on. There clearly is no desire to support potential victims and avoid creating others.

That is the problem with this bill. Our job is to try and find solutions. I think that you can help us with that. What can be done to make the necessary adjustments, but obviously without contravening the object and purpose of the bill? Do you have an answer to that?

[Jacques Paquette]

I have two answers. First of all, let's talk about income and this very specific case. My feeling is that we are talking about two different things, and that there is some confusion in that regard. My answer was specific in the sense that the Old Age Security Program was implemented with a view to ensuring a minimum standard of living to seniors, in order that their immediate needs be met. I have said that from the beginning. What that means is that this is not a program aimed at supporting the family; there are other programs available for that.

Consequently, when you ask me about a mother and her children, my response is that there are other programs that were and continue to be in effect to provide that kind of support to them. That is the difference. The sole purpose of the Old Age Security Program is to support seniors in need. That is what we are talking about.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I would like to add something, and that may give you an opportunity to clarify your answer as well. The salary an individual receives is not based on how many children he or she has. It is the same thing for benefits. It is a survival benefit, and therefore, it is not calculated based on the number of children.

Similar to what my colleague asked earlier, what can be done to support them? Even the minister was unable to identify any such measures. Can you?

[Jacques Paquette]

The minister did identify a certain number of federal programs that support families, such as—

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

She made reference to the provinces.

[Jacques Paquette]

She gave very specific examples. Reference was made to disabled persons, for example, and there are specific programs aimed at children as well.