House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was consultants.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I pointed out Motion No. 507 that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has put forward already calling for the clawback of old age security-GIS for multiple murderers.
We were out there with that motion in the early days once this whole situation developed with the serial killer in British Columbia. New Democrats are supporting getting the bill to committee at second reading, so that we can deal with some of the potential unintended consequences which I outlined in my speech.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her presentation on Bill C-31. I certainly found her remarks to be very relevant to the provisions in the bill. She outlined them very well.
Certainly, in regard to this government's approach to just crime in general, we have seen it for the last five years now looking at changes to the Criminal Code in a very piecemeal fashion based on whatever is happening in the news media at any particular time. In fact, the government should be doing a total revision and revamping of the Criminal Code of Canada which has not really been dealt with in a major way for 100 years. That is what the government should be doing in cooperation with the opposition.
With regard to the pension system, the member clearly pointed out that, once again, the government should be looking at a comprehensive approach to the pension system. It should be looking at doubling the CPP system. If we were to put $700 million toward the GIS for I believe one-quarter million seniors, mainly women, we would be bringing them out of poverty in this country.
That is the approach the government should be taking and that is what the member is pointing out. The government should be looking at a universal approach here dealing with the problem in the country rather than simply jumping from issues that happen to be popular at a certain time that it thinks helps its poll numbers.
I have news for the Conservatives. They have been doing this for five years and it has not helped their poll numbers at all. I suggest they pull back and come up with a comprehensive strategy in both the pension area and in the crime area.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right, we have seen that piecemeal approach. We have talked in this House before about wedge politics, and using rhetoric and simplistic kinds of approaches. It is not the way to build a comprehensive strategic plan both to deal with pensions or to deal with the criminal justice system.
At the outset of my remarks, I indicated that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh had talked about the fact that this is actually the wrong approach to deal with the clawback of OAS-GIS. What he has proposed, and I am sure there will be further discussions on this, is that this rightfully belongs under the criminal law jurisdiction where the courts could order at the time of sentencing a clawback of these benefits. That proposal would not have the danger of undermining the universality of OAS-GIS.
I am optimistic that when the member for Windsor—Tecumseh gets an opportunity to suggest some of these other approaches to dealing with this problem, that the government will be receptive.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of public policy that we are dealing with here today. It will have some serious impacts, some of which I do not think anybody would disagree with, for example, the removal of any further benefit to serial murderers who are serving life sentences.
I guess the fear that many of us have in this is that when one throws a net out such as this, one catches people who should not be caught, or who will be impacted in a very serious way in terms of their ability to be rehabilitated, to get their lives back on track, get into the world at some point, and to look after themselves not to mention their families.
I ask the member in looking at this bill, is this OAS-GIS as opposed to Canada pension? OAS-GIS, in my understanding of it in the work that I have done out of my office, typically goes to seniors who do not have much income and need a top up usually to get them through the poverty line, so that they can live a life with some dignity and quality attached to it.
This will impact some people who, as has been said, end up in the prison system to begin with because they live in poverty, oftentimes the outcome of that, and the fact that many poor people end up in jail because they cannot afford a good lawyer in the system that we have.
I would ask the member to delineate for me if this is OAS-GIS versus CPP? Also, to expand a bit more on what she considers to be the problem with universality and whether she thinks this might end up at the Supreme Court and being challenged as unconstitutional.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with OAS-GIS and not CPP.
When the minister rose, he asked whether we in the NDP were in favour of taking money back from serial killers. Of course, we support that aspect of the bill. What he did not say was that this actually suspends payments to all persons aged 65 years and older, not just serial killers.
We need to take a look at some of those broader impacts on people who are over age 65 and also the universality aspect of it. The question that has to be considered is: by undermining the universality of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are other people, who may also be federally supported, in danger of having their OAS-GIS clawed back? I talked about veterans in vet hospitals.
It is our responsibility and due diligence to ensure that when we have a piece of legislation before us we look at the consequences of that legislation. At the outset of my speech I talked about the voter ID bill that was before the House and disenfranchised thousands of voters. That was an unintended consequence and we want to make sure that other people in a federally-supported system are not caught up in a widely cast net.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks and for drawing the House's attention to these unintended consequences. There are two that I hope she has time to comment upon.
First, a number of inmates will be caught up in this far more than just the Clifford Olsons of the world. As a result, for their families and spouses, who may be under 60, there will be no OAS and GIS. The results in terms of their poverty and innocence with regard to all of this is of concern.
Second, restitution payments to victims of crimes may not be possible—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order. I have to cut off the hon. member in order to give enough time to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to respond.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on restitution for victims of crime. I had a meeting this morning with somebody who had been in touch with one of the families of the murdered and missing women and the rigmarole that this family had to go through in order to get access to money for victims of crime was unbelievable.
One of the things we could also consider is ensuring that victims of crime are adequately supported in dealing with some of the terrible tragedies as a result of these violent crimes. That is certainly missing. I know provincial governments have some responsibility, but the federal government does as well.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me to add my comments at second reading to Bill C-31, eliminating entitlements for prisoners. I will confine my remarks to the things that are actually in the bill, not the wild speculation of the previous speaker.
I commend the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development for sponsoring this important legislation and also for her excellent speech just over one hour ago.
The eliminating entitlements for prisoners act, Bill C-31, is a very important bill. It is important for taxpayers and for victims of crime and it is important for the principles of fairness.
As the minister has noted, our Conservative government is strongly committed to ensuring fairness for hard-working taxpayers. Ordinary, every day tax paying Canadians deserve fairness from their government, and this government intends to deliver fairness to those taxpayers.
The government provides many services and it also provides help, but that help comes from the tax dollars that the government collects. It comes out of the pockets of every hard-working tax paying Canadian, the Tim Hortons crowd if I may.
Income security is one of those things the government provides and it is important. It is important the government provide that help fairly to Canadians since, as I have said, that money belongs to Canadians. It does not belong to the government. It is taxpayer money.
When we are talking about fairness, and in this case we are talking about treating hard-working and law-abiding Canadians and their tax dollars fairly. We are also talking about doing what we can to ensure that victims of crime and their families are not faced with more pain. These victims should not have to watch the painful sight of their money and their community's money going into the pockets of the very criminals who hurt them and their families.
The Prime Minister has said it, the minister has said it and many of my colleagues, including me have said it. We will continue to put victims and taxpayers first, ahead of criminals.
Our government believes that Canadians who work hard, contribute to the system and play by the rules deserve government benefits such as old age security. This is what our government believes and I think it is what Canadians expect. I certainly know from hearing from many of my constituents by letter, by email, by phone call, that this is what my they expect.
It is obviously wrong and obviously unfair that prisoners who have broken our laws, who have broken our society's trust receive the same taxpayer-funded benefits as law-abiding Canadians. I am perplexed as to how it could be otherwise. I believe this, the government believes it and my constituents believe it. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister believes this, as do all Canadians.
Bill C-31, which I welcome, would ensure that criminals, those who have broken trust and broken our laws and made victims of their fellow Canadians, would no longer receive taxpayer-funded benefits while serving time in jail.
Right now, without this change to our laws, child murderers such as Clifford Olson are receiving these government benefits, notwithstanding that he brutally murdered 11 children.
As the minister told the House, in a few short years Paul Bernardo similarly will be entitled to these benefits. Some day in the not too distant future so will Mr. Robert Pickton. This cannot happen and that is why it is incumbent upon the House to act expeditiously.
These criminals, these murderers, to take just a small example, brutally and heartlessly took the lives of people living in their communities. Many of those lives were young, and they shattered and forever diminished the lives of those families who had members torn from them.
For criminals such as these to easily, blithely receive the same “assistance” from our government is simply wrong.
The assistance that the government provides is intended to help older Canadians with their costs of living after many decades of work and much contribution to their families, their communities and their country.
Prisoners on the other hand, criminals who have broken our laws so seriously that they are incarcerated in federal institutions and provincial prisons for long periods of time, do not need extra cost of living assistance. Why? Because they already have their costs of living paid for by the taxpayers of our country, the same taxpayers from whom these criminals have taken so much.
This is offensive and outrageous to our government, to our Prime Minister and to our Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. This is also offensive to Canadians all across the country, and that is why I believe there is wide support for the bill, at least at second reading. We have heard from members on both sides of the House and it appears the bill will be near unanimously favoured when it comes to a vote. It is offensive to all Canadians.
As soon as this shockingly unfair and unjust situation was discovered, the Prime Minister asked the minister to take action as quickly as possible to put a stop to incarcerated criminals receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. The abbreviations they are more commonly known by are OAS and GIS.
It is our government's intention, our commitment and our goal to fix this. Our government has shown that when we make a promise to Canadians, we take action. We follow through on our commitments to Canadians. That is why the minister acted with the haste that she did.
We are going to remedy this inequity and we are moving quickly to do so. Why? Because that is what Canadians want and that is what they demand. That is exactly what my constituents want, and it is happening here today. Today is part of that process, a process that I hope will continue to move swiftly.
I am going to touch on the main details of the bill. I think the attention is good and the details are relatively straightforward.
A prisoner's needs, such as food and shelter and their standard of living, such as it is, are already met and paid for by public funds, and that is by the hard-working Canadian taxpayers. That has a cost and we pay it. We pay it voluntarily and we pay it gladly.
What I and my constituents are not okay with is the provision of benefits that are meant for law-abiding hard-working seniors to instead go to prisoners. Canadian taxpayers should not be paying for double for income support through OAS and GIS benefits to these same prisoners. It is grossly unfair to force law-abiding Canadian taxpayers to pay for the criminals twice, first, by paying for the room and board and second, by paying for the supplemental benefits, the OAS and the GIS.
Once passed, the bill will terminate OAS and GIS benefits for federal prisoners. The federal government will then work with the provinces and the territories to stop these benefits for prisoners who are serving 90 days or more in a provincial or territorial institution.
I hope all provinces and territories respond as favourably to the minister and to this legislation as the British Columbia government has. I understand British Columbia is already on board and once this legislation is passed, it will similarly apply to provincial prisoners in the B.C. detention system.
I also hope all my colleagues in the House will respond positively and quickly. Our constituents, who are our bosses, our fellow taxpaying Canadians, expect us to use their hard-earned tax dollars fairly, responsibly and prudently. They have told us that, loudly and clearly.
I am sure all members of the House have received feedback with respect to the bill after it was announced last spring. Speaking on behalf of the considerable correspondence that I received, it was universally positive.
In fact, what encourages me most is the overwhelming response from Canadians. They have truly told us, loudly and clearly, what they believe is right and fair. We have heard publicly from the families of the victims of Clifford Olson. We have heard from the national victims support groups. Those people whose lives have been so damaged by the actions of these criminals are pleased and supportive of our government's action. They support the bill.
We have also heard from rank and file police officers from across the country, people who often see the damage first-hand that is brought on by these criminals.
We have heard from regular, everyday taxpayers across our country, as I referred to earlier the Tim Hortons crowd.
The minister received a petition in support of the bill. It was signed by nearly 50,000 Canadians. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Many more thousands of people have told us, have told the minister and our colleagues that the bill is necessary. The response that we have seen and heard has truly been remarkable.
When circumstances like this unjust entitlement are discovered and when Canadians speak out so clearly and so loudly, we must listen to them and heed to their calls, advice and demands.
It is not a credit to us that this unfair and wrong practice came into being and continued, with little if any notice. It is not a credit to any of us that those who did not know it, did little, if anything, to change it.
We cannot change the past, but we can certainly fix the present and improve things for the future. That is what we are doing today with the continued second reading of Bill C-31.
The bill is also in line with many of our Conservative government's other related actions with respect to the victims of crime and their families. We have a strong record of action and this legislation only builds upon that record.
The bill is in keeping with our Conservative government's commitment to put victims and law-abiding Canadians first, and certainly to put them ahead of criminals. It puts an end to the hard-working taxpayers paying twice for prisoners and to having victims of crime see their victimizers receive unjust public help.
Finally, the bill is about the responsible use of taxpaying public funds and the fair treatment to all Canadian taxpayers. It is the fair and right things to do and it is what Canadians want us to do. We need to listen to Canadians. We need to pass the bill.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech has been very helpful. I have not had an opportunity to read the bill, but I did listen to the prior speech and I heard most of the minister's speech.
There is one question of which the member, who is a lawyer by profession, may be aware. If we have a circumstance where we have two identical persons, one of who, for lack of years of residency, does not qualify, for instance, for old age security and the other one does, and they both commit the same crime and are both sentenced to the same term in prison of something over two years, one would get the additional penalty of not getting the old age security. I am putting it into the context of this and I am asking it for information purposes. Is this not a situation where the penalties prescribed under the law would be different for two persons who committed exactly the same crime and all the same details? I ask this for information purposes.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
It is a good question, Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure that I do. If two individuals commit the same crime but one would otherwise be entitled to OAS and the other one would not, does that create a differential in penalties if the bill is passed? The result would be the same. The one individual who was otherwise entitled to OAS and became a federal prisoner would thus be disentitled. Under that circumstance, neither would get it so they would be treated fairly and equally.
However, that really misses the point of the legislation. The legislation is to disentitle serious criminals, those who are incarcerated for more than two years in a federal institution or more than 90 days in a provincial institution from being paid twice, being paid once by having their room and board paid for by the taxpayers of Canada as they are sentenced to spend time in an institution and then to subsequently receive OAS and GIS on their 65th birthday.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
I will try once again, Mr. Speaker. I understand that if one person does not get OAS and another one who is in the same position does and it is taken away, then they would both get nothing. The issue is that someone had a financial entitlement and there is real value being taken away. Therefore, this is the term of sentence prescribed by the judge for both persons, but the law would also say that, “And should you be entitled to anything else, we will take that away too and it is only applicable to you”. Therefore, there is that differential in terms of the two cases.
I raise simply about whether there could be a problem that the punishment, whether it be in time or in other consequences, is different for two persons who commit exactly the same crime.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, assuming this is relevant, and I do not know that it is, I suppose the member made a point, but there is nothing unique about a situation where individuals who receive a disposition from a criminal court ultimately have that disposition changed.
An obvious example would be if an individual received a life sentence and died while he was in prison. He would end up serving less time than another lifer who was able to serve more time.
These differentiations are irrelevant and certainly take away from the good content of this legislation which is to disentitle federal inmates from tax-paid supplements, such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, paid for by taxpayers who are concurrently paying for those prisoners to be housed in federal institutions.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, what did the government of the day and the prime minister of the day have in mind when they initiated the program in the first place? It is my understanding it was the Joe Clark Conservative government in 1979 which initiated the program. The Clark government changed the rules.
I would like to ask the member whether he has read anything in terms of what sort of arguments were in play to allow the Conservative government of Joe Clark to change the rules to allow prisoners to get OAS and GIS in the first place?
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the House when Mr. Clark was the prime minister of Canada. What I can speak to is this legislation that is before the House.
All members must fairly admit that in the spring of 2010 when the newspapers published the story about Mr. Olson's entitlements and how much money he had actually saved from those entitlements and what his monthly stipend was, we were all caught off guard. We all bear some responsibility for the fact that this went unnoticed for so long.
Canadians were rightfully outraged when they found out that federal prisoners were receiving slightly in excess of $1,100 per month. The hon. member represents people in Winnipeg. I am sure a lot of the seniors in his constituency do not bank $1,100 per month. They use these stipends, this government assistance, to pay their mortgage, rent or heating bills. They do not bank $1,100 a month like a federal prisoner does.
When this government found out about this inequality and that the taxpayers were paying twice, paying prisoners' room and board and also paying the monthly stipend, it acted quickly. That brings us to the debate today on Bill C-31.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.
The bill is fairly simple. It is not lengthy by any means. The bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under that act while maintaining entitlement to benefits for, and avoiding a reduction in the amounts payable to, their spouse or common-law partner. It would preclude individuals, who of course are over the age of 65, from receiving benefits under the old age pension or the old age supplement when they are incarcerated in an institution.
We are dealing with a principle here and I agree with the principle. It probably does not apply to a lot of people. My research indicates it is in the vicinity of 400 individuals across Canada. We are not talking about an awful lot of money. It is $2 million on a pan-Canadian basis, but it is the principle. I would suggest it was an anomaly that was never caught by anyone. The situation right now is that there are approximately 400 individuals who are perhaps not receiving all the GIS, as it would depend on other sources of income they have, but they are receiving benefits from the taxpayer while they are incarcerated in a federal institution.
Again the standard situation is probably individuals who committed serious crimes. They probably turned 65 while they were incarcerated and they are getting this money. I think I speak for most Canadians that they are offended when they hear this. They do not think their taxpayers' money should be used for that purpose and they think it should be stopped. I think the vast majority of Canadians certainly will support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of noise in the House and I would ask for your assistance.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I would ask your colleagues to appreciate the fact that you are giving a speech and that they pay you the courtesy that is due.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I thank you for your assistance, Mr. Speaker.
I have been around the House long enough to know that sometimes when something looks and sounds simple and is something that should be done quickly and expeditiously without a whole lot of debate or deliberation, we get into the whole area of unintended consequences. Sometimes what we did not really expect to happen happens, and sometimes we do not find out until a year or two later.
I certainly will agree that this bill as drafted should be passed by the House. The bill should go to committee to allow the committee to study it. In principle, I agree with it, but are there any unintended consequences that should be looked at? We do not want to cause anyone harm, especially people who are not involved in the particular situation.
Some unintended consequences have been raised this afternoon, such as the whole issue of universality. I do not see that as an issue myself. We have to look at why a person is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, which is approximately $1,100 a month. The reason is it is a benefit available to every Canadian so that people can pay for their accommodation, food, transportation and other personal needs. This, or most of it, is all taken care of under the prison system. That is the situation.
Another situation that has developed and will be looked at by the committee is what the obligations are of the senior to a spouse or a child. I would not think it likely that there would be a child, but there could be, or maybe a dependent child. These are situations that will have to be looked at very carefully by the committee.
I do not know how a 65-year-old person living separate and apart from his or her spouse is treated with regard to GIS. I know the GIS per couple is less than that for two single people. I do not know how that situation is treated, but it is something that will have to be looked at because at the end of the day, we certainly do not want any adverse repercussions for the spouse, whose life is probably difficult enough. We do not want any adverse repercussions to him or her, especially not having been involved in the crime nor being in prison. Spouses certainly do not need any more grief in their lives by having their existing benefits cut.
Restitution orders have been raised by other members. Again, that will have to be looked at by the committee. There will have to be discussion about any ongoing support obligations to previous spouses or dependent children who are disabled. Is there an obligation to support that individual in the unlikely situation the prisoner may actually have children? Those situations will have to be looked at before the bill gets final approval by the House.
This point was also raised by a previous speaker, but I want to reiterate that this does not involve the eligibility of benefits under the Canada pension plan. In that particular case, if the incarcerated person was receiving CPP benefits, he or she would have paid into them when he or she was working. The person is certainly entitled to those benefits and will continue to receive them. This bill does not affect that entitlement whatsoever.
An issue has been raised, and this is where it gets very interesting, where I do see unintended consequences, although it does not affect the bill in its present form. The bill contemplates that the provinces may opt in and not pay the benefits to anyone who is incarcerated for more than 90 days. In the federal system the incarceration is in excess of two years. It is a much simpler system. I do not have the confidence in the provincial and federal governments to administratively deal with this issue.
I will describe a situation. If a senior citizen were incarcerated for 90 days, administratively that would mean that at a certain time of the month the person would have his or her benefits cancelled. Let us say that the person went to jail on September 15 and three months later the person was released, which would, of course, depend on a lot of circumstances. We can see the administrative nightmare. These people, because they are receiving GIS, which means they have no other income whatsoever and are living hand to mouth, I have a real concern administratively as to the capability of the provincial and federal governments to coordinate all their efforts to ensure these payments are stopped on time and, more important, started on time.
I know that is not the issue before the House today but I see that as a serious issue going forward if all the provinces opt in. From my dealings, I do not think the capabilities are there to make it a seamless administrative procedure to do this without causing all kinds of problems. Given the numbers we are talking about, I can see a situation in which the administrative costs would certainly exceed the benefits that would be saved on that particular issue when they start cancelling benefits for short periods of time. However, that is something for the committee.
I support the legislation because I, like most Canadians, was appalled when I first read about it. It is a situation that I, like most members of Parliament, never thought about. It was raised in one particular instance. I do not like making laws and discussing public policy based on one particular incident or one particular individual but this goes right to a public policy situation where approximately 400 eligible recipients are receiving benefits as we speak. In that particular case, it does warrant some response from the house.
It is my position that the bill should be passed by the House at second reading and go to committee for further study.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend's comments regarding Bill C-31.
I, too, am very curious to know what the arguments were for making the OAS and GIC available to federal inmates back in 1979. If this is true, that was when Joe Clark, a Conservative prime minister, was in office. I would like to know whether this was an administrative directive on his part or whether it came to Parliament. If it came to Parliament for debate, surely there would be Hansard records of the day as to why that government would want to extend OAS and GIS to federal inmates in 1979.
Is the member aware of the discussions that went on in Parliament at the time or did the Joe Clark government simply issue a directive without any debate to provide these OAS and GIC benefits to federal inmates in 1979 when the Conservatives were in power?
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, I was not here in 1979 so I am not aware of any discussions.
We perhaps should not talk about suspicions but my suspicion is that this particular situation was not thought about nor debated. Of course, 31 years have transpired since then and it has not been raised in the House that I am aware of since then. Therefore, I think that is the situation.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-31. This is a controversial subject that has certainly prompted the government to spin itself into action when it became public information that Clifford Olson was receiving OAS and GIS benefits. However, no mention has been made at all about how, why and when these benefits were originally made available to federal inmates. I for one have been trying to find out just how that came about. My information is that the benefits were given to federal inmates under a Conservative government in 1979, the government of Joe Clark.
I would like somebody on the government side to stand and tell me why the Conservative government proceeded to give federal inmates OAS and GIS benefits back in 1979. Perhaps there is some Hansard of the day that we could refer to. Perhaps there was a directive. Perhaps it was done as a result of a court decision upon which the government had to act. However, certainly in the fullness of debate that we would expect in this House over a bill, or any bill for that matter, that information should be made available.
In dealing with the actual provisions of Bill C-31 and other related measures, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, in her presentation, pointed out that the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster did introduce into this House Motion No. 507.
I want to read Motion No. 507 for the members. It reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should prohibit the payment of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments to individuals serving life sentences for multiple murders, except where the individual is released from prison, and allocate the proceeds to a Victims Compensation Program administered by the provinces.
That particular motion, which was introduced by one of our NDP members, is currently before the House and I am certain that it will be debated in due course.
However, in terms of the provisions of the bill, as we know from the debate this afternoon, the bill would suspend payment of the OAS and the guaranteed income supplement to all persons 65 years of age and older while they are serving time in a federal correctional facility, and that, as we know, would be a sentence of two years or more. The bill would also suspend payment of the spousal or survivor allowance to eligible individuals between 60 and 64 while that individual is serving time in a federal facility.
It also maintains the OAS and GIS payments to spouses and partners of those who are incarcerated and provides to receive these payments at the higher single rate based under individual not combined spousal program.
We also know that the CPP provisions would stay in place. They would not be affected by this bill.
Also, the bill would maintain spousal allowance benefits to the spouses of incarcerated individuals.
It would allow the provinces to opt in by entering into agreements with the federal government to suspend OAS and GIS and spousal allowance benefits on the above terms to all individuals incarcerated for a sentence that exceeds 90 days in a provincial facility.
The member who just spoke showed some concern about how this would work vis-à-vis the provinces. He was fairly clear that the federal component would not be a problem but when we were dealing with the provinces he has some concerns.
I believe all these issues can be dealt with when this bill goes to committee. We are dealing with second reading here. We are dealing with the principle of the bill. However, as the members know, when we get into the committee structure, many more aspects to this bill will be dealt with and amendments will be made at that time.
Notwithstanding the above, the benefit payments would still be paid during the first month of incarceration. The benefit payments would resume the month that an individual was released on earned remission, parole, statutory release or warrant expiry.
In terms of some of the positive aspects of the bill, and I think we have heard some comments this afternoon about that, there is a certain logic to suspending payments designed to provide for the basic necessities of life in cases where the taxpayer is already funding the basic needs of necessities of life. Suspending pensions for prisoners meets a test for a lot of Canadians. We have heard from Canadians on this issue in large numbers.
We know that $2 million would be saved immediately under the program and up to, I believe, $10 million a year if all of the provinces and territories were to opt in. We also know that the bill would mitigate to an extent the financial impact on the spouses because it would allow spouses to receive the OAS and GIS payments at the single rate based on their individual rather than their combined spousal income.
I want to retreat to the motion that was tabled by the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster, Motion No. 507, where he specifically deals with the issue and very narrowly focuses the resolution on the issue of payments to individuals serving life sentences for multiple murders, of which I understand there are approximately 19 people in that category at the current time. Except where the individual is released from prison, it allocates the proceeds to a victims compensation program administered by the provinces. We would not only have the benefit of stopping payments to serial murderers but we would have the added benefit of taking the money and presenting it to the victims.
If we are a Parliament that believes in help for victims, it seems to me that the member has thought of a proper approach to this problem by earmarking the OAS and GIS amounts to a victims compensation program administered by the provinces. To me, that is a much more sensible approach to the problem as opposed to the broader forum that this bill implies.
Having said that, I do not have any problem at all with this bill going to committee. I do not have a problem with it in principle. In the committee, the debate will follow through and get to all of the issues. Hopefully we will consider the suggestion by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster to confine it to multiple murderers, that we take the money and put it in a compensation fund to help victims, which is where it should go, and that perhaps we can make some amendments to the issue.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper.
When the House returns to this matter, the hon. member from Elmwood—Transcona will have 11 minutes remaining.
The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I stand here to support the intent of private member's motion No. 513 with some reservation and obviously some questions.
This is a private member's motion put forward by a government member, but it seems strange that the government has not given the motion the type of high-level support that was given to the private member's bill on the cancellation of the gun registry. Regardless, it speaks volumes about the priorities of the government that it has given so little support to such a fundamental and important issue as health care. However, this should not come as a surprise since in its four years as government the administration has said little or nothing about health care, medicare, health human resources or injury prevention, all issues mentioned in this private member's bill. So I wish my hon. colleague good luck with her efforts, given that her motion has such a low priority on her party's agenda. Notwithstanding, I want to give the member credit for attempting to put on the agenda such an important and urgent issue.
Let us look at the hon. member's motion.
She is looking at encouraging and assisting provincial and territorial governments and the medical community and other groups to lessen the burden on Canada's health care system. That is laudable. I applaud it and I support it. However, in question period and at other times, her party continually refuses to answer questions on the functioning of the Canadian health care system, whether it is medicare, prevention systems, or public health systems. Especially on medicare, her party calls it a provincial jurisdiction, as the provinces are struggling with the rising costs of delivering medicare.
As we well know, in times of high unemployment and in times of an economic downturn, international studies and Canadian studies have shown over the years there are high levels of stress for populations, high levels of depression and other physical illnesses such as ulcers, hypertension and heart disease. These all seem to increase during this time, because it is well known that economic status and employment are key indicators of population health.
All the provinces are struggling at a very difficult time to take care of the need for health care services, and the government has not raised a finger to help. Not only have the Conservatives not raised a finger to help, they have not even raised their voices in support of or to find some kind of solution to the problem. In fact, they have been given a failing grade by the health professions for their lack of attention to the wait times list and to the process of better management of the health care system.
One only has to look at the Romanow report to see excellent examples of what should be done to deal with creating a more efficient management system for medicare in this country, to deal with issues such as prevention or health promotion and keeping populations healthy, and to deal with issues such as technology. One just needs to read the Romanow report to see things such as home care, pharmacare and community care systems being developed in this country.
These are things that under our administration were brought forward in 2003 and 2004. In 2000 we injected enormous amounts of money into the system to help bring it up to scratch and to start moving in this direction. This was never supported at the time by the member's party, but we cannot continue to look backward. She is trying to look forward and again I want to give her credit for that.
This is not rocket science. Groups have told us what to do. The Romanow report said many things needed to be done. There are lots of things we need to do to make a sustainable, effective, efficient system in this country.
The hon. member made an important point in her motion and that was the issue of increased adoption of technological developments.
I was at the Pacific Northwest economic region, or PNWER, conference in Calgary in August. One of the pieces talked about was the sharing of health care information to create more effective systems across the border.
Interestingly enough, even though the United States and Canada have very different health care systems, what we did hear at that conference was that all of the people who were there who were health care providers and professionals working in the systems, including the private insurance companies in the United States, were envious of what Canada had started in our Infoway systems and the money that had been put into making it work and the money that continued to be injected in it over the years.
Canadians at that meeting, not politicians but people who worked in the health care system, bemoaned the fact that it had been cut. What everyone was saying, including the American insurers and the American deliverers of their system, was that within that system lay the ability for people in very different parts of the country and different isolated areas to be given the kind of information they needed so that they could have a timely attention to intervention, so that they could in fact have the ability to get information about the patient quickly so that duplication of tests was not done.
The group was saying Infoway improves timeliness, it improves wait lists, and it improves information so that we do not have duplication. Therefore, it saves a lot of money and it is one of the best systems we have seen and would really like to use. We are sorry to hear that it now may not survive and is not as effective as it could be. Again I want to congratulate the hon. member for bringing it up, because it is something very important. She has hit on an important piece in making the system work better.
Section (b) in the motion speaks to the issue of a better recognition of the changing roles of health care professionals and the needs of Canadians. That is bang on once again. We know that three million Canadians do not have access to a primary care physician.
We know there are a lot of people here, as I said earlier, in this country who have medical degrees, who are family practitioners and would like to be able to work. I would like to speak to this clearly, because I was given that portfolio in our administration in 2004 and for a year I went around the country looking at the issue of foreign-trained workers, foreign credentials and people having the ability to work in this country.
We put forward a huge plan, but we did not succeed in winning government. We put money first into health care, about $95 million to move forward with physicians at least, and we were working with the nurses. History has it that we no longer were the government and this all disappeared. What we have now is a 1-800 number and all or some of the community structures that we put in place are completely gone.
Indeed it is important to have a better recognition of the changing roles of health care professionals, because we know there are many nurse practitioners and other health care providers who could provide appropriate service given their appropriate training. We could work as multi-disciplinary teams. That is a solution right now to some of the health care problems, but to do that, one has to continue to do the work that our administration did in looking at primary care clinics with multi-disciplinary teams as pilot projects set up in places such as British Columbia and Ontario, which were showing great results with nurses, physiotherapists, nutritionists and everyone in one-stop shopping for the patient. It was effective, efficient, and it saved money. It was able to be timely, and that was very important for everyone. Again, all those things that we set in place seem to have disappeared, because I agree with the hon. member's section (b).
Section (c) calls for a greater focus on strategies for healthy living and injury prevention, and again, I want to thank my colleague for pinpointing one of the most important issues. Some 60% of diseases are preventable. I have heard nothing from the member's government about the issue of primary prevention, secondary prevention, dealing with issues such as obesity, and looking at HIV/AIDS. There is now a HARRTT, or highly active antiretroviral therapy, program developed and being used in British Columbia so that patients can have a pill as soon as they are diagnosed HIV positive that will bring down the viral load. The British Columbia government is doing it, but the federal government has not even deemed it an important enough issue. That is just one example.
I want to thank the hon. member for an excellent motion.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, over the next hour this evening, we will be discussing health. Before we begin, I would like to sincerely thank all those who, in their everyday lives, make others aware of the different illnesses that can affect them, and of the importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle. The people who volunteer or work on these types of activities are quite simply remarkable. It is important for us to remember that.
This evening, I would like to particularly thank an organization called PROCURE, because this week is Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. The people of PROCURE work tirelessly to promote awareness of this illness, which affects many people. In fact, 25,000 people every year are diagnosed with prostate cancer. It is very important to highlight the wonderful contribution of these volunteers, in particular the founding chairman, Marvyn Kussner, and also Cédric Bisson, the chairman of the board, as well as all of the volunteers who make up the board of directors. I would also like to highlight the extraordinary work of Jean Pagé, the spokesperson for PROCURE, and a well-known personality in Quebec.
As you know, PROCURE organizes an annual walk. This was its fourth year and it is clear to the organizers and creators of this event, Father John Walsh and Robin Burns, that the PROCURE Walk of Courage has become a huge success. And this year, including the PROCURE Tour of Courage that was launched by an accomplished triathlete, Laurent Proulx, $444,000 was raised. In addition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, jumped on his bike to help this great cause. I was there in June with some colleagues and it was wonderful to see the hundreds of walkers and cyclists coming together to join in the fight against prostate cancer.
Once again, I would like to salute all of the volunteers as well as the paid staff, Claudine Couture-Trudel and Javier Rivera, for the excellent work they are doing to educate the public. I would also like to mention the excellent work done by the doctors who participate in the Biobank collection network.
Getting back to motion M-513 by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I would first of all like to read the final press release of the annual conference of federal-provincial-territorial ministers of health, held in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, on September 14, 2010. I will just read the first sentence of the second paragraph:
Ministers endorsed* a Declaration on Prevention and Promotion that will guide their efforts to promote healthy living across Canada.
The asterisk refers to the following text:
It should be noted that although Quebec shares the general goals of the Declaration and Framework for Action, it was not involved in developing them and does not subscribe to a Canada-wide strategy in this area. Quebec intends to remain solely responsible for developing and implementing programs for promoting healthy living within its territory. However, Quebec does intend to continue exchanging information and expertise with other governments in Canada.
How can Quebec adopt its own guidelines and not participate in the Declaration and Framework for Action? Quite simply because health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
I am convinced that my colleague will not be surprised. If I told her that I would be voting in favour of the motion, she would probably fall off her chair. I will prevent this—as I do not want her to hurt herself—by telling her that I will be voting against her motion for the simple reason that, once again, the member is obviously attempting to interfere and to ensure that the federal government has a greater say in what the provinces should do to fulfill their responsibilities in the area of health care.
It is interesting to see how, in some instances, the Conservative members formally acknowledge that health and health care delivery are the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and, in others, they try by various means to do the opposite of what they maintain about Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction.
I truly wonder what is behind this doublespeak, this double standard. Experience tells me that when the government gets a hot potato, it tends to lob it to the provinces. However, when it comes to looking good or boasting, it makes more sense to the government to play a more important role in determining what is best in terms of health care and establishing a framework to promote healthy lifestyles.
To hear my Liberal or NDP colleagues, it has always been clear to them that “Ottawa knows best”. It does not bother them when the federal government just happens to interfere in jurisdictions that belong to Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. For the Conservatives it is doublespeak and a double standard. This evening, we are hearing the usual Canadian discourse. In other words, this government should tell the provinces what to do about health care and determining strategies for health care delivery.
However, the Bloc Québécois has always been clear. It is important to ensure that all our constituents can benefit from the best health care services. All our electors say the same thing. Health care remains a priority to them. However, if the federal government truly wanted to play an important role in health, it would address the underfunding related to the fiscal imbalance, which denies Quebec and the provinces the necessary revenue to properly assume their responsibilities. The government would give the provinces all the means to assume their full responsibility in terms of delivering services and establishing the best ways to treat illnesses.
I simply want to say to my colleague that, unfortunately, in the case before us, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to her motion.