SOCI - Standing Committee

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Past Session: Past Session:
40-3 40th Parliament, 3rd Session (March 3, 2010 - March 26, 2011)
Select a different session
 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue 17 - Evidence - December 9, 2010

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 9, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:31 a.m. to give consideration to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act).

Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

[English]

Today the committee will be dealing with Bill C-31, which is an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. The bill is otherwise known as the Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act. We are pleased to welcome the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, the Honourable Diane Finley. She is here with Jacques Paquette, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. That is a lot for a business card. We also have Don Head, Commissioner of Correctional Services of Canada. Welcome to you all. I will turn it the floor over to you for opening comments.

Hon. Diane Finley, P.C., M.P., Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development: Thank you. I am pleased to be here today to talk about Bill C-31, the Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act. Canadians were shocked and outraged when it was discovered that mass murderers like Clifford Olson are receiving taxpayer-funded Old Age Security, OAS, benefits and Guaranteed Income Supplement, GIS, benefits.

This not only angers Canadians, but, at a personal level, I was outraged and offended, as was the Prime Minister and indeed our entire government. That is why, as soon as it was discovered that this was going on, our Conservative government took immediate steps and action and introduced Bill C-31 to put an end to incarcerated criminals' receiving these benefits.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, 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 contribution 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 the tax dollars of hard-working Canadians.

Since an inmate's basic needs are already paid for by public funds, Canadian taxpayers should not also be paying for income support through OAS benefits.

[English]

It is grossly unfair to make law-abiding Canadian taxpayers pay for incarcerated criminals twice. Accordingly, Bill C-31 puts an end to criminals receiving OAS and GIS benefits while they are in prison. Let me briefly explain what this legislation aims to do.

Once the bill is passed, it would terminate OAS benefits for prisoners sentenced to more than two years in a federal penitentiary. This would affect approximately 400 federal inmates and save Canadian taxpayers an estimated $2 million per year. 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 serving 90 days or more in a provincial or territorial prison. This would affect an estimated 600 provincial and territorial inmates per year and result in a saving to taxpayers of as much as an additional $8 million annually, for a potential total of $10 million per year if all provinces and territories sign on. I have written to all of the provinces and territories to gauge their support, and I hope that they all agree to work with our government to move forward on this important initiative.

I would like to point out that this bill will put the Old Age Security Act in line with other federal and provincial, as well as international, practices. For example, the Working Income Tax Benefit and the Employment Insurance program both cease payments of benefits when an individual is incarcerated. As well, most of the provinces and territories — British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territories — do not make social assistance available to inmates. What is more, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, among others, also suspend the payment of pensions to prisoners.

[Translation]

I feel 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.

[English]

The support we have received from Canadians right across this country has been overwhelming, and it has proved that this bill is the right thing to do. I would like to share with you some of the reactions that we have received. One of the people by whom I was most touched was Sharon Rosenfeldt, the president of Victims of Violence and also the mother of one of Clifford Olson's victims. She is a woman whose life was forever altered by his heinous crimes. She said about this bill:

It is common sense that one cannot benefit twice at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. That is why Canadians are upset and outraged. This bill is important for the principle of fairness.

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.

I commend [the] Prime Minister and [the] Minister for taking leadership on this important issue and ending entitlements for convicted criminals.

Ray King is the father of another victim of Clifford Olson. When he learned that the government had introduced Bill C-31, he said:

It's best news I have heard in a long time. I'm quite pleased the government has actually done something.

David Toner, president of Families Against Crime and Trauma, also praised this bill:

We are thrilled that [the] Prime Minister and [the] Minister have taken leadership and are putting victims ahead of the entitlements of prisoners. I commend the Harper Government for introducing this legislation.

Senators, it is not just the families of victims that support this bill. Law enforcement has also been very supportive. I have heard from police officers across the country who believe that this bill is the fair and right thing to do. As an example, Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu applauded the bill and had this to say:

It would be my hope that the innocent victims will no longer feel further victimized by watching their attackers receive old age pensions during their forced retirement from their careers of crime. I'm sure this evolutionary change in legislation will be greeted warmly about the many victims of these criminals.

As well, taxpayers right across the country have voiced their support by signing a Canadian Taxpayers Federation petition supporting this bill. In fact, almost 50,000 Canadians signed the petition in just six short weeks.

The president of the Canadian Taxpayers Association, Kevin Gaudet, has said:

. . . struggling taxpayers are squeezed twice, first to house criminals and then again by lining their pockets with those entitlements. It's this injustice that has to stop, and Bill C-31 does just that.

When the [government] does something right, they deserve credit.

I have also been touched by the countless Canadians from all across this great country who have taken time out of their schedules to support Bill C-31. I have received more correspondence on this issue than almost any other.

In short, Bill C-31 is about doing what is right and what is fair. Our Conservative government believes that Canadians who work hard, contribute to the system and play by the rules deserve government benefits, such as Old Age Security. Prisoners do not. We are committed to ensuring fairness for hard-working taxpayers, and we will continue to put victims and taxpayers ahead of criminals.

Canadians have made it clear that they want this bill and they want it soon. I was very pleased to see this bill move so quickly through the House of Commons. After debate, study at committee and hearing from several witnesses, this bill passed unanimously through the house with the support of all parties. I urge all of you on this committee to stand up for hard-working, law-abiding Canadians, stand up for what is right and fair, support Bill C-31 and ensure its speedy passage.

The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. I understand your two associates are here for the purposes of answering questions as opposed to making statements.

Ms. Finley: Yes.

The Chair: Before moving on with questions, I want to welcome Senator Cowan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; as well as Senators Brazeau and Banks who are subbing for absent members of the committee. Thank you, senators, for being a part of our consideration of Bill C-31.

Minister, thank you for coming here and speaking to this bill. You have mentioned 400 federal inmates saving taxpayers about $2 million. You have also indicated that you do not want to do anything that hurts the innocent families of these people.

Do you know whether there are many dependent children who could be affected here? The OAS or the allowance that goes to the spouse between age 60 and 65 is one thing, but what about children being involved — will they be affected by the cutting off of this pension?

Ms. Finley: We are concerned about the families. That is why we made the provisions for the GIS to continue under the singles category for a spouse or common-law partner. OAS does not deal with children. It is based on age and residency, as well as some degree of income determination.

However, a number of other programs exist to help children, whether it be for their education or just general assistance.

The Chair: You do not see any of this in any way hurting the families of the inmate, who are people who depend on some income from the government, either through OAS or one program or another? Do you not see them at all being hurt by this measure?

Ms. Finley: Within the construct of the Old Age Security system, we have taken every step possible to ensure that the innocent family members will continue to receive the support to which they are entitled. For example, instead of having the family income measured and determined for eligibility for GIS, only the income of the spouse who is not in prison would be used for the calculation, so that person would probably get an increase recognizing that single income.

The Chair: The OAS payment would be cut off after one month in the institution. However, as I understand it, when people are finished their time and are returning to civilian life, they have to apply to the minister for permission to have their OAS reinstated.

What is involved in the time factor there? When these people get out of prison, we do not want them to live on the street or to get back into crimes as a means of sustaining themselves. How quickly can that system work, and would the application start before they leave, when their termination date is known? Would there be a system of informing them and helping them to ensure there is no gap or hiatus once they are out of prison, so that they have money at that point in time to sustain themselves?

Ms. Finley: That is a legitimate concern, which we share. There are several aspects to it. First, we need to be in touch with inmates when they are being released, primarily so that we ensure we know where they will be. We need address and banking information from them.

However, in the design of the implementation, we have taken this into consideration. We are designing it such that the institutions or the Correctional Service of Canada would advise us once a month of who is anticipated to be leaving so that we can start to prepare. Once individuals are released, we need to have them contact us to ensure we can get the funds to them at the right place and right time.

There are also provisions for if they have just missed a monthly payment, for example. We can issue payment rapidly. That is standard within our OAS practice; it already exists for special circumstances. Therefore, we can ensure these individuals do get the funds they need when they hit the streets.

The Chair: I have one final question. The Correctional Service of Canada provides for the accommodation, food and health care for people in the prison system. If prisoners want something over and above that for personal hygiene or for recreational activities, they can work and earn it, as I understand it. Some of these people will be elderly, and although not everyone receiving the OAS is necessarily infirm, perhaps some of them would not be able to do that. How would you not be providing an inequity in the situation here?

Ms. Finley: The inequity right now is that prisoners are getting paid twice by taxpayers for their basic necessities of life. OAS and GIS are designed to ensure that Canadian seniors who helped build the country meet a minimum threshold of support to meet their basic daily needs, such as food, shelter and clothing. These are already being provided to persons who are incarcerated in prison. Therefore, it is unfair that taxpayers should be paying twice for these individuals. Whatever else they have, some prisoners do have other sources of funds. That is entirely their business. However, we believe that once they are in there, paying their debt to society, society should not be paying them twice.

Senator Callbeck: Welcome, minister, and thank you for your comments and for being here. You mentioned that you have written to the provinces. In order for this legislation to work, the provinces have to agree. Have you had any indication from any of them how they feel about this?

Ms. Finley: Yes. It is important to remember that eight of the thirteen jurisdictions, I believe, have similar legislation provincially. Therefore, we are anticipating support from those. We have had considerable support from the provinces on this so far. We are even looking at reaching information-sharing agreements with most of them very quickly upon passage of this bill.

Senator Callbeck: You have not had any objections to date; is that what you are saying?

Ms. Finley: A few have had concerns, and we are addressing those concerns with them.

Senator Callbeck: What are their concerns?

Ms. Finley: Some are concerned about the administrative burden this might entail. We are trying to make it as automated as possible, recognizing, too, that the numbers are not that great. However, it is a principle we are fighting for, so we want to ensure that the administrative burden is sufficient to get the job done thoroughly and well but is not a deterrent to implementation.

Senator Callbeck: On the costs, I cannot quite follow these figures. You mention on page 3 that 400 people are affected and that there will be a saving of $2 million. On page 4, you talk about 600 people, which is roughly 50 per cent more, but there will be an additional $8 million. That sort of does not make sense. Could you explain that?

Ms. Finley: First, these are estimates. Until we have information-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories, we will not know exactly how many people will be affected. We did estimates of $2 million to $4 million at the federal level and $4 million to $8 million at the provincial level. If you take the range, it is actually somewhere between $6 million and $10 million. That is why I said in my speech it is a potential of $10 million maximum. It could be $6 million.

The key here is that this is not an attempt to save money. The attempt is to bring justice back to the system and fairness to the taxpayers. That is the real objective.

Senator Callbeck: I agree with the proposed legislation, but I thought if 400 federal were a saving of $2 million, then 600 would be a saving of $3 million.

Ms. Finley: These are all estimates, and it could range anywhere from $6 million to $10 million in total.

Senator Callbeck: On the release, inmates have to notify you that they will be released, and so does the institution. Let us say they notify you in May that they are being released in June, and somehow they fall through the cracks and that does not get approved until July. Is it retroactive?

Ms. Finley: It is retroactive to their date of release, yes.

Senator Callbeck: That is fine. The institution has to notify you as well as the inmates.

Ms. Finley: Yes. In that way, we can reduce the opportunity for fraud, shall we say. The institution will let us know so we can start the paperwork process, but we do need to be in touch directly with the inmates being released to ensure that in fact they are released and that we know where and how to deliver the money to them, whether it is an address or banking information. We want to ensure we get those funds to them as quickly as possible and as accurately as possible.

Senator Callbeck: Prisoners will get their Old Age Security for the first month, and I assume the supplement and so on. Is that because of the time factor? Why are you giving them their OAS for the first month?

Ms. Finley: It depends on when they go in. We recognize that in that first month, as they transition in, they may have significant expenses preparing to go in. Equally, at the end, they get within that month, so we are trying to be fair and reasonable.

Senator Callbeck: On release, how are inmates to know that they have to contact the minister?

Ms. Finley: We are working closely with the Correctional Service of Canada, as we will with the provinces, to ensure that they have the information to provide when prisoners enter the system but also as they prepare to leave. The institutions will have to let us know. That is a trigger for them to let the prisoners know as well.

Senator Callbeck: They will let the prisoners know?

Ms. Finley: Yes.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, minister, for being here this morning. It is important that ministers are here for bills that concern their departments.

My understanding is when prisoners are being released, they have to notify you in writing. In this day and age, does that mean pen and paper, or does that mean email?

Jacques Paquette, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: It could be done in different ways, as long as we get a written message from the inmate.

Senator Cordy: This is done in conjunction with the institution also letting you know so that there is no fraud.

Ms. Finley: We need corroboration.

The Chair: Does the Correctional Service of Canada have any plans for processing these matters?

Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada: As the minister pointed out, we have two processes set up. One is through an information agreement with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. We will share electronically with the department about 13 or 14 data items so that the department can confirm Don Head is Don Head. As well, we are putting in place processes for how we will work on an ongoing basis with offenders who fall into this age group and advise them how they can go about making the application, assist them where necessary, and work with our non-governmental organizations in the community for individuals who may not necessarily follow up right away but may decide to afterwards. We are putting in the processes to support this bill to its fullest.

Senator Cordy: Can prisoners actually email the minister before they are released?

Mr. Head: We do not allow access to email, but we will work out a process to ensure that whatever system for notification is being used gets to the minister so that there is no slippage or falling through the cracks.

Senator Cordy: You will work on that from within the institution?

Mr. Head: Yes, we will.

Senator Cordy: Minister, 400 federal inmates and 600 provincial and territorial inmates are seniors. Do you expect that number to be rising just as the number of seniors is rising within the general population?

Ms. Finley: That is very difficult is to say. Even those numbers are truly estimates. We will not know the exact numbers until we enter into the information-sharing agreements. It would not be unreasonable to think that as the population ages, there will be more seniors and fewer young people. Those numbers may change. On the other hand, with the income supports that exist for seniors now, it may not be necessary for them to turn to crime. These things are difficult to predict.

Senator Cordy: Mr. Head, with the number of seniors increasing in prisons, and we will assume it will go along with the general population increase, how will that change the way you do things in the institution? I am not talking about the seniors who are 60; I am talking about seniors who are frail, elderly and still in prison.

Mr. Head: One challenge we have is providing for or addressing the basic care and needs of those individuals. Many are medical needs, as you can imagine. One of the challenges we are looking at now is how to position ourselves for a population that will age within the correctional system. It is one of our priorities, and we are continuing to monitor that situation and make any adjustments as required.

Senator Cordy: The older institutions were not designed for frail, elderly prisoners.

Mr. Head: You are right, senator. We have been looking at where we can make physical infrastructure changes to certain cells to accommodate mobility issues and making sure our health care units have the proper type of equipment to assist those who have different needs. It is a challenge for us but one that we have earmarked resources for and built into our planning process.

Senator Cordy: There are physical disabilities, which you have mentioned, but there are also dementia issues.

Mr. Head: Very much so.

Senator Cowan: Welcome, Minister. I support this bill as well. I think it is a very reasonable approach. My concern is really about where the money or the savings go. The bill has been portrayed as an effort on the part of the government to put the interests of taxpayers and victims ahead of those of criminals. That seems to be a laudable objective, and I think this achieves it. However, there are some savings, which I appreciate are only estimates, of $2 million on the federal side and $3 million to $6 million or $8 million on the provincial sides. They are significant savings.

I wonder whether you will apply those resources to help the victims of crime. It is a fact that the government has cut the budget of the grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative by 41 per cent and the contributions for the Victims of Crime Initiative by 34 per cent, a total of $2.7 million.

I am sure you are well aware of the comments made by the outgoing Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Mr. Sullivan. He feels that the victims of crime have not been recognized in terms of financial support by the government. Can you provide us with some assurance that the savings that will be derived from this bill will be directed to helping the victims of crime by restoring the support for those initiatives? Alternately, can you tell us whether the government has other initiatives that would achieve the same purpose and that those will be appropriately funded so that the victims of crime will receive appropriate support?

Ms. Finley: One of our government's priorities has been to support victims ahead of criminals. We have introduced a number of programs and legislation aimed at doing that.

The savings that will accrue as a result of this bill will be returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund because that is where Old Age Security comes from. We are changing the Old Age Security Act. Under that act, the funds can only be allocated for the support of seniors through the Old Age Security system and the Guaranteed Income Supplement program. Within that realm, we have no authority to redirect any savings. All the funds appropriated have to be spent on that. Any savings accrued will go back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Within the bill itself, it would be totally inappropriate, not to mention illegal, for us to redirect those savings.

However, we have done a number of things to help victims. There is the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. In the last three years, we have committed over $50 million to respond to a variety of needs for the victims of crime. The savings will support other programs for victims because they go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Senator Cowan: I understand why those monies have to go back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund —

Ms. Finley: And we will be funding those programs.

Senator Cowan: — but you have cut those two programs I referred to. There are others. Do you have plans to further support the victims of crime, which is the stated purpose of this proposed legislation?

Ms. Finley: We are doing that. We have done that for the last five years, and we intend to continue doing so.

Senator Banks: Minister, we have not met before, but I am glad to see you. Thank you for being here, and Mr. Paquette. Mr. Head, we have met before, but not professionally. Well, it was my profession, not his.

On the face of it, it would seem absurd to oppose this bill. However, I will ask you a couple of questions and be the devil's advocate. I am remembering that all the people who will be affected by this are not Clifford Olsons. As some senators have said, there are elderly prisoners who are far from being Clifford Olsons.

The concept of the bill is based partly on the fact that prisoners are provided with everything when they are in prison, as you have said, minister. I will address this question to Mr. Head because I do not think they are provided with everything while in prison. They are provided with something to keep the rain off, food, medical assistance when necessary and clothing. However, I do not think you provide them with toothpaste, for example. Am I right about that, or do I have that wrong? There are other things, as well, such as shaving cream and feminine hygiene products — the accoutrements of life that some of us take for granted.

Mr. Head: That is a good question, senator. I will make two points on this.

First, offenders have the opportunity to be remunerated while they are in the system by working and/or participating in programs. They can earn a maximum of $6.90 a day or $69 in a two-week pay period. That money can be used for the purchase of various accoutrements.

We also recognize that there are additional needs, as you pointed out, such as shaving cream, toothpaste, non- prescribed medications, et cetera.

Senator Banks: And a piece of chocolate maybe once a year.

Mr. Head: Yes. For each pay period, we provide a $4 credit that the offenders can use to purchase those kinds of items. It is not cash. When they leave the institution, if they have not used it, there is no cashing it in or payment of that. They have the ability to earn that.

Currently, 40 per cent of the offenders we are talking about in this age group are at the top level of pay and are earning $69 every two weeks.

Senator Banks: Yet 60 per cent of them are not, are they?

Mr. Head: No, they are at various levels below that.

Senator Banks: What I am getting at is that it is not entirely the case that everything they need when they go into prison is covered so they can live a normal, reasonable life. They have the opportunity of working and getting some other income or credits, as you said, but some cannot work, I presume.

Mr. Head: We provide an allowance for those who cannot work or who are infirm. Additionally, individuals have the opportunity for family members, friends, whoever, to donate money into their accounts, which they are then able to access the same as the other funds.

Senator Banks: Let us come at it from the back end, in looking at the necessity for this legislation. You have the authority either to permit or require — I am not sure — portions of an inmate's income to be clawed back, if I can use that term. Is it the authority to require?

Mr. Head: We may require them up to 30 per cent. It is commonly referred to as room and board.

Senator Banks: If you made that up to 90 per cent and made that mandatory authority, would that not solve this problem?

Mr. Head: As the minister pointed out, it is not necessarily an issue of recouping money. Currently, under the legislation the limit is 30 per cent. That is the maximum that I can prescribe under commissioner's directives. We only recoup up to 25 per cent right now. However, depending on a person's individual financial situation, the institutional heads — the wardens — can waive the other recovery of the room and board.

Senator Banks: They can waive it, but they cannot increase it beyond 30 per cent?

Mr. Head: No. They cannot currently increase it beyond 25 per cent. The cap of 25 per cent has been set for many years. However, we could under the legislation bump the room and board premium up to 30 per cent of monies that are earned beyond the maximum pay period.

Senator Banks: If they did that, minister, and if you changed that provision under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, would that not achieve your objectives and still maintain the universality principle?

Ms. Finley: Not entirely, no. It is the issue of inmates receiving Old Age Security that is offensive to Canadians. If we are to try to recoup those, we have no way of doing that.

It is not just a percentage. There is a dollar cap that is, quite frankly, inadequate. Were you to try to change that even by regulation, it would have to be done all the time. There is really no way to access the funds. If we were to pay into an account somewhere, Correctional Service of Canada might have no access to those funds.

Mr. Head: May I explain that?

Ms. Finley: Yes. That is your specialty.

Mr. Head: If individuals are having funds deposited into a account out in the community and someone with joint signing authority sends money into the institution, we would have no way of confirming the source of that money. Therefore, individuals could easily have their OAS or GIS deposited out into the community. A family member could then legitimately withdraw it and bring in cash or a cheque and have it deposited into their accounts. We would not know the source of the funds.

Senator Seidman: Minister, I want to thank you for your timely action on a matter that, as you described, is right and fair for victims and tax-paying, law-abiding Canadians. Canadians who work hard, contribute to the system and play by the rules and not those who commit crimes deserve benefits such as Old Age Security. I do hope that we can pass Bill C-31 with the support of all senators in the Senate as soon as possible.

Ms. Finley: Thank you. I share that hope.

Senator Callbeck: Mr. Head, you mentioned that inmates earn money by working or participating in a program. What type of program are you talking about? For example, if they are taking an anger management program, do they earn wages for that?

Mr. Head: Yes. They can be remunerated for participation in an anger management program, a substance abuse program, a sex offender program or programming intended to address living skills. If those programs are defined in their correctional plan and they are following their plan by participating in those programs, then they can be remunerated based on our remuneration scale.

The Chair: Let me ask about the Canada Pension Plan. I understand that is not affected by this.

Ms. Finley: Not at all.

The Chair: I take it that if anyone is receiving Canada Pension Plan when they go into prison, they would continue receiving it. If they are in prison, can they apply for it and get it while in prison?

Ms. Finley: The two programs are very different. OAS is based on residency, and it is paid out of general taxpayers' money from general revenue. The CPP is based on the individual's contributions to the program. It is quite an entirely different philosophy, if you like, and a contractual arrangement. If someone has paid into the program, it is like paying into an annuity. They made an investment in that and they get to claim that, yes.

The Chair: We have reached the end of this session. I thank you, minister, and Mr. Paquette and Mr. Head, for being part of our discussion and dialogue and informing us about Bill C-31.

We will now be joined by a representative of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation via video conferencing, which is in the course of being set up. However, we have a few other witnesses we can hear while we are getting that ready.

We have, representing Victims of Violence, Sharon Rosenfeldt, President. Victims of Violence was founded in 1984 and is dedicated to providing support and assistance to victims of violent crime and to assist families of missing children in the search for their loved ones. From the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, we have Irving Kulik, Executive Director; and Justin Piché, a member of the Policy Review Committee. Mr. Piché will speak for the organization, and Mr. Kulik will help answer questions.

From the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec, we have Ruth Gagnon, a member of the Board of Directors. The role of that organization is to seek to identify solutions to the problems associated with adult crime through efforts to make individuals accountable for their actions. Their goal is to seek fair solutions for the victims, the community and the offenders. Welcome to the committee.

I will introduce Kevin Gaudet, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, when he is online.

Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence: Thank you. I hope my glasses hold up. I lost my prescription glasses, or it might be that my grandchildren I am babysitting might have put them away somewhere. I have an old pair, and hopefully they will last.

The Chair: Could I ask each of the presenters to limit themselves to about five minutes please?

Ms. Rosenfeldt: Certainly.

I am the president of Victims of Violence. It was started 26 years ago by my late husband Gary, me and a number of other individuals who had a loved one murdered. We found there were no services for people like us in our situation. We were thrust into a justice system we did not understand.

The organization grew and grew due to other individuals contacting us from across Canada, looking for answers in their particular set of circumstances regarding their victimization. We did not have these answers, but we did our utmost to help them find out. Most of the time, it resulted in changes having to be made to legislation, mostly to the Criminal Code.

Needless to say, criminal justice issues are many and, for the most part, very complex. A significant observation of ours was that the issues we were addressing and asking to have changed were always quite controversial and sometimes emotional simply because they are usually affecting the lives of human beings, the lives of the offenders and the lives of the innocent victims of crime.

On behalf of our membership, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present to this meeting on the importance of Bill C-31, to amend the Old Age Security Act.

We agree with and support the principle of Bill C-31. The principle of Bill C-31 is clear in that the Old Age Security program is funded through general tax revenues and is designed to help seniors meet their immediate, basic needs and maintain a minimum standard of living in retirement. Since a prisoner's basic needs, such as food and shelter, are already met and paid by public funds, there is no reason for Canadian taxpayers to also fund income support for prisoners through Old Age Security benefits.

A motion was put forward in the House of Commons that this bill pertain only to multiple-murder offenders. We did not support that concept. We looked upon that motion as simply a ``Clifford Olson solution.'' That motion does not address the principle of Bill C-31, which Canadians are outraged about. Clifford Olson's name is only the symptom of the issue that we are here discussing today; his name only brought this issue to the forefront. The focus must be on the principle of Bill C-31.

In our research on other countries, we found the U.K. to be the strictest in its legislation of payments of pension to convicted prisoners. The U.K. legislation states that convicted prisoners are not entitled to social security benefits. This includes state pensions even when people have contributed to them for many years. It applies irrespective of whether the prisoner is imprisoned in the U.K. or somewhere else in the world. The general rule is that convicted prisoners in the United Kingdom do not get any social security benefits at all, although payment of certain war pensions and industrial disablement benefits are suspended for up to a year on paid release.

Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg do not pay state pensions during the duration of the prison sentence. Prisoners are entitled to their full pension rights on completion of their sentence.

France does pay state pension, although its system is somewhat different. The state pension payment is made into the prisoner's account, but 10 per cent is deducted and allocated to the prosecution when applicable, and 10 per cent is set apart and goes into the prisoner's release allowance. Prisoners who do paid work while serving their prison sentence pay contributions that are taken into account for calculation of their state pension upon their release.

Greece pays state pensions to some convicted prisoners. The prisoners who do not qualify are those convicted of finance-related crimes such as fraud, theft, robbery and damage to public property; they are excluded from receiving state pension.

The Province of Ontario already prohibits inmates from receiving the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System benefit, the Ontario Sales Tax Credit, Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit and the Northern Ontario Energy Credit. In a statement, Minister Bradley said:

These benefits are designed to help honest, hard working families pay for their necessities, and we are not allowing convicted prisoners to receive those benefits. Taxpayers are already paying for prisoners' food and shelter.

The executive director of the John Howard Society is quoted as saying that he believes government could make a principled argument for inmates who will probably never leave prison and have all their needs met, but clawing back Old Age Security is another matter because it is a right of citizenship and would require carving out an amendment for despised minorities.

Citizenship is part of the criteria and likely is considered to be a right. However, most seniors who qualify for Old Age Security do not have their basic needs, such as food and shelter, paid for by the taxpayer, and they are not allowed to bank their Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits, which senior prisoners are allowed to do today.

Further, I do not believe that senior prisoners are looked upon as despised minorities. I think that is really rude. Rather, it is common sense that one cannot benefit twice at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. That is why Canadians are upset and outraged. Take the Clifford Olson name out of the headlines and taxpayers would still be upset simply because they are paying twice.

This bill is important for the principles of fairness. Having said that, we would like to thank the Canadian Taxpayers Federation for its work in having 50,000 Canadian citizens sign a petition.

In closing, I will repeat the words of a pensioner, who said that if seniors go to a long-term care facility and cannot afford to pay, the government takes back their pensions and gives them a small sum for spending. Senior prison inmates, on the other hand, receive free room and board and are allowed to save almost $1,200 a month from their OAS and GIS benefits. As well, they receive the best of medical services, whereas a senior would only be eligible for the basic of needs.

This senior citizen gets it. That is why Canadians are outraged. They want their tax dollars to be used responsibly and, above all, respectfully.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Rosenfeldt.

Justin Piché, Member, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association: The Canadian Criminal Justice Association welcomes the opportunity to discuss our Policy Review Committee's position regarding Bill C-31, which we have outlined in full in our brief submitted last month.

The CCJA is one of the longest-serving non-governmental organizations of professionals and individuals interested in criminal justice issues in Canada, having begun its work in 1919, and it has testified before parliamentary and Senate committees on numerous occasions. Our association consists of nearly 800 members and publishes the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, the Justice Report, the Justice Directory of Services and the Directory of Services for Victims of Crime. We also organize the Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice every two years.

The CCJA recommends that Bill C-31 not receive the legislative support of the Senate for many reasons.

Taking pension benefits away from prisoners until their release undermines public safety goals by taking away funds that they may need to obtain food and shelter upon their release from prison. As noted in the 2007 Public Safety Canada study, it is well documented that when individuals enter prisons, they ``may have lost their livelihood, their personal belongings, their ability to maintain housing for themselves and their family . . . .'' In these circumstances, the expenditures associated with re-establishing oneself on the outside involve many large one-off costs, such as deposits on a rental unit and purchasing essentials.

The clawing back of pension benefits from affected prisoners and the subsequent waiting period of several days or weeks for them to receive benefits once they are released into the community will likely mean in real terms that few funds will flow to these ex-prisoners when they may need them the most. The collection of pension benefits while incarcerated, as it stands today, arguably has a crime prevention benefit, as the amount of stability these funds offer provides ex-prisoners with resources to resettle. Without this, the chance of reoffending resulting from need or stress amongst the affected prisoners may increase.

This legislative initiative has been touted as a measure to support the rights of victims of crime. However, this argument ignores a vitally important principle in democratic countries that recognizes that criminal justice is not a zero-sum game. In our view, removing benefits or services from prisoners does not bolster the rights of victims. Moreover, it creates additional victims by extending the punishment of affected prisoners to their families. Every household has bills and expenses to pay. In cases where a prisoner has a household to which he or she contributes, the loss of income that would result from the elimination of pension benefits could result in financial hardship for those who have been left behind despite the provisions in the bill that allow spouses and partners to apply for these benefits as single-income earners. This measure could also exacerbate economic strains for those who are already struggling to pay for household relocation to communities where prisons are built or for the costs of travel and phone calls incurred to maintain contact with their incarcerated loved ones. In these cases, Bill C-31 could potentially contribute to household instability and disintegration, which creates high costs for all Canadians through expenditures related to civil court, legal aid, child welfare, mental health and other services.

Recent media coverage aptly demonstrates the problems with optics that government pensions for prisoners engender. However, we encourage legislators to exercise moderation when it comes to this bill. The extensive media coverage of the case of Clifford Olson distorts the profile of prisoners who are currently receiving pension benefits as shown by figures obtained from the Correctional Service of Canada that show that multiple murderers account for only 19 of 398 incarcerated federal prisoners who are eligible to receive pensions as of March 2010. That is 4.8 per cent. When legislation is tabled rapidly in response to a public concern in a manner that excites and promotes emotion, even outrage, the successful reintegration of the majority of prisoners who will one day return to our communities is endangered.

It should also be noted that Access to Information requests for government research, including cost estimates related to this legislation filed with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and other departments, were processed without having disclosed a single record. A request filed with Justice Canada in June 2010 has yet to be processed, as the department required a 175-day extension to conduct consultations. As a result, the expenditures that could be incurred as a result of this policy or savings are unknown to most legislators and Canadians or are, at best, estimated.

Moreover, the policy analysis that is needed to evaluate the feasibility of implementation as well as the direct and indirect costs does not seem to have occurred. Legislators should not pass laws where such research has not taken place.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ruth Gagnon, Member, Board of Directors, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec: Mr. Chairman, in our view, the changes proposed by Bill C-31 have major problems. On the one hand, the proposed changes seriously affect the principle of universality of social protection regimes. Instead of providing solutions, the bill elicits a myriad of worrisome questions.

On the other hand, the bill does not take into account the repercussions on the targeted persons, presuming incorrectly that their fundamental needs are already met by taxpayers.

The Old Age Security Act was put into place in order to create a social safety net to ensure that the elderly could meet their fundamental needs while respecting and preserving their dignity. This law recognizes the precarious nature of the situation of the elderly due to their specific needs and limitations.

It is therefore their status as elderly that engages this protection and only this status that makes necessary the establishment of this social protection regime, without taking into account any other attributes these people may have.

The amount paid by Old Age Security Pension (OAS) as well as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is therefore not just given in order to pay for housing and food. These minimal revenues are also given in order that the person in question may meet basic needs such as the purchase of clothing, goods and services that will assist in his personal development as a human being.

The principle of universality of social programs, in particular, social security and the right to an adequate level of living, is the object of numerous judicial instruments, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The proposed bill is diametrically opposite to these values that are so cherished and defended. It proposes to exclude a group of citizens by reason of their status as an inmate, while these same citizens have the same needs and limitations of their compatriots of the same age.

The universality of the Old Age Security Pension presupposes the equality of the elderly. Excluding inmates from this social security regime is not only discriminatory but also contradicts the very essence of the Old Age Security Act, which is to provide necessary support to the vulnerable group that is the elderly.

The bill is not only an attack on the principle of universality but will have serious consequences for elderly inmates. It is completely false to claim that by excluding them from this regime, the State will meet their needs in the same way it meets the needs of other elderly persons.

The Correctional Service of Canada furnishes certain services to its inmates, namely housing (a cell), food and essential medical services. However, everything that is outside of the obligations of the CSC must be furnished by the inmate from his funds. In other words, all articles of personal hygiene and those relative to hobbies, for example, must be paid for by the inmate.

Federal inmates have the possibility of working in the penitentiary. In fact, the granting of the Old Age Pension to inmates fits with the correctional legislation currently in effect.

Second, lawmakers recognize that elderly inmates have the right to have their basic needs met and to continue to grow as individuals without having to work, exactly as elderly persons in the community do. To conclude otherwise will in fact guarantee that the elderly must suffer an additional punishment because of their age. Not only will they live their incarceration more harshly because of their age and their health problems, but they will also be deprived of income again due to their limitations.

For these reasons, we are against the adoption of Bill C-31 in its present form. We believe that the proposed modifications infringe the principle of universality of social programs and are prejudicial to the targeted persons. Of course, it is logical that an inmate should not receive the entire amount of the Old Age Pension because food and housing is already being provided. It seems normal that elderly inmates make some contribution.

There is already a mechanism in place by which an inmate can be compelled to contribute to the costs of food and housing. Section 78 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits an inmate to contribute to housing, food and health care expenses if he receives benefits notably from a government source. However, as of today's date, there exists neither a regulation nor a Commissioner's Directive in this respect. Nevertheless, one can be made. We believe that the use of this article or a similar modification would be a less draconian measure than completely excluding inmates from this protective regime. This method also has the advantage of not affecting the principle of universality.

[English]

The Chair: Now joining us by video conference is Kevin Gaudet, Federal Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Kevin Gaudet, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation: Honourable senators and my fellow witnesses, we are a national non-partisan, not-for-profit organization with more than 67,000 supporters nationwide. We have offices in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, including Toronto and Ottawa. Recently we established a presence in Atlantic Canada with our office in Halifax.

The mandate of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is to advocate for lower taxes, less waste and more accountable government. We have been doing this for a long time now, celebrating our twentieth anniversary this year. We do not take government money, nor do we issue charitable tax receipts.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee and its staff for having accommodated our request to appear by video link. It turns out to be a great way to save money, and I can only encourage this approach by this committee and other committees more often.

I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supporters to speak in favour of Bill C-31, what we call the Clifford Olson bill. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation played a large role in getting this bill introduced. I would like to commend the government and opposition parties for their rare speed in responding to this issue once it became public. Please allow me to remind the committee as to how we came to be here and the role that the CTF has played.

In late March last spring, an article appeared in the Toronto Sun in which Clifford Olson bragged to Peter Worthington that he was receiving Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments courtesy of the federal government and courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. This amounts to some $1,169 a month, a little over $14,000 a year, for him and every prisoner like him. As soon as this story ran, we started to receive contacts from our supporters expressing great dismay with this situation. They were upset that such a heinous criminal should receive a generous and unnecessary largesse at the expense of the taxpayer. We decided that, on their behalf, we would put forth a petition calling on the federal government to cease providing OAS and GIS payments to prisoners like Clifford Olson.

We were overwhelmed with the response. In my four years with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and in our 20 year history, this petition campaign has been one of our most explosive. It garnered, in only about six weeks, almost 50,000 Canadians joining to sign the petition demanding an end to these payments.

We took the petition to Ottawa, where we were pleased to present the petition to the Minister for Human Resources and Skills Development, Minister Finley. During our meeting, she promised to act on the petition and pushed forth legislation in short order. She kept her promise, and here we are at committee six or seven months later.

Canadians and Canadian Taxpayers Federation supporters should be pleased to see some of the comments from Ms. Sgro on behalf of the Liberals, who have advocated speedy passage of this bill; and the qualified support expressed by Mr. Desnoyers for the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Maloway of NDP.

The CTF is happy again to see the support of the government on this issue and the minister's quick action. In my role as spokesman for the CTF, I spend a great deal of time being critical of governments, including the Senate. However, when government and politicians do things right, we are mindful of the need to give appropriate credit where it is due. This is just such a case. Parliament is moving quickly to end the injustice of providing these benefit entitlements to those who do not deserve them. Thank you for that.

Only in Canada could someone serving 11 consecutive 25-year sentences for murder collect more than $1,100 a month for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. That is the case with senior citizen Clifford Olson. With federal and provincial prisoners combined, this could amount to some $7 million per year in payments to those who do not deserve them, for purposes that are not required — payments that ought to be stopped.

Old Age Security was created in 1951, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement was added in 1966. They were and still are programs designed to help seniors make ends meet so that Canadians with little or no income have enough to live on. Clifford Robert Olson is a Canadian over the age of 65. He turns 70 on New Year's, is eligible for and is receiving OAS and GIS. He will likely die in jail. He has no meaningful living expenses while there. According to the most recent statistics on the Correctional Service of Canada's website, the average annual taxpayer cost of keeping a maximum security male incarcerated was $121,294 in fiscal year 2006-07.

Olson was arrested in 1981 and admitted into federal custody in 1982, 28 years ago. It costs taxpayers more than enough to keep him behind bars. It adds insult to injury to pay him to be there by giving him such important support entitlements that were designed to help seniors make ends meet. These entitlements were never meant to line the pockets of those like him.

The CBC website in British Columbia ran a story on our petition. People were able to post comments in response. Please let me bring one of those voices to committee from one of those who posted on the site. It is the voice of a victim of Clifford Olson. Her posting reads as follows:

I am the stepmother of one of Olson's victims. . . . I live on the same amount he receives, but I PAY FOR MY OWN FOOD, CLOTHING, ESSENTIALS. Colleen's sister is struggling as a single mom to raise three children, and HE wants his money. One of the other posters mentioned that the 2 million should go to families of the victims of their crimes. Just put it into the old age pensions and give us a better income. . . . it's terrible how I have to struggle and pay taxes for him to never have to need anything. . . . I also agree that he is grandstanding, once again. How sad that there is even a group of people out there that think prisoners have rights. He took my daughter's right to live, and with her went pieces of our hearts. This really is a very sad society.

This lady, whose family was victimized, points out how outrageous it is that struggling taxpayers are squeezed twice, first paying to house such criminals and then again by paying to line their pockets with these types of entitlements. It is this injustice that has to stop, and Bill C-31 does just that.

Thank you for having invited me today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gaudet, and thank you to all of you for your initial submissions.

We will now have a dialogue with the committee. My first question is for Mr. Piché, but anyone can respond as well.

Mr. Piché, the matter you raised in your comments about people who get out of the penal institution to the street being able to support themselves was something I raised with the minister earlier. The answer she came back with was that processing would be done while this person was in prison. Her feeling was that when they got on the street there would be a restoration of the OAS so that they would not be caught in a gap or hiatus trying support themselves on the street. I think we all want to make sure that these people do not end up homeless on the street or getting back into crime.

Do you take comfort in that, or do you still see some difficulty with this legislation?

Mr. Piché: Regarding that particular point, the fact that the minister was not able to point to a particular process or mechanism that could be used to bridge that gap that may exist when someone reapplies for those benefits speaks for itself.

The Chair: Mr. Head, who is from the Correctional Service of Canada, said that they were preparing to have a process put in place that would involve informing the prisoner and going through the necessary paperwork.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Head was committing to revise the list once a month, presumably at the beginning of every month. However, what happens if a release date falls in the middle of the month, let us say weeks 2 or 3? A gap will inevitably be there. If this bill passes, and I am sure it will, maybe a mechanism needs to be thought about.

The Chair: A point that Ruth Gagnon made on behalf of her association suggests that the universality of the OAS should be maintained. She talks about it in constitutional frameworks, in terms of the Charter, et cetera. As I understand it, she is suggesting an appreciation of the concern about the taxpayers paying twice, which both Ms. Rosenfeldt and Mr. Gaudet talked about. She suggests that maybe another way of going about this is to take back money from prisoners to help pay for their basic costs of food and housing. As we learned earlier, that represents the maximum contribution of up to 30 per cent. I think Senator Banks was asking whether it could be higher.

Would that be a better way, do you think? You would not get into this question of the universality, but you would get into the question of cutting off the taxpayers' paying twice. I will aim that question at Mr. Gaudet and Ms. Rosenfeldt.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: I am not sure that Canadian citizens would see it in that manner. All they see is that they are paying twice.

I would like to make a quick comment on a question you asked Mr. Piché. I do not see that this would be much different than any prisoner, when they are released back into the community, having to prepare. They have to get health cards and social insurance cards. Why would this be that much different? There might be another bit of a process to go through. However, as someone mentioned, at this point there are 19 prisoners. We are not talking about a huge population. What we are talking about is the way Canadians view this. I do not think they take into consideration that they are paying 70 per cent or 80 per cent towards their room and board. It is either-or, and I would not support that. I support the principles of the bill.

Mr. Gaudet: With respect to the question of universality, as has been outlined by a couple of the witnesses, there are precedents across the country where the provision of a number of programs is suspended. I am not clear why this ought to be any different, nor am I clear on what constitutional grounds. Perhaps temporarily suspending the provision of this program would be challengeable under the Charter. I honestly do not share that concern.

With respect to Ms. Gagnon's thoughtful suggestion regarding the possibility of charging incarcerated individuals for their stay, I would say that is an interesting question, although slightly tangential to this. If we are going do that, I would argue we probably have to do it for all prisoners, which is an interesting conversation. We might find a lot of support from these quarters.

However, this raises the question for me of the principle behind the decision. The principle behind the provision of Old Age Security, as I understand it, from the imposition of legislation in 1951, was to help seniors make ends meet. If we only charge them, for example, 30 per cent, or even if we figure out a way to claw back 100 per cent, either we do not claw it back 100 per cent and they end up, in effect, banking the rest, which I think is a violation of the principle of the act from its inception, or we claw it back 100 per cent, which I think needs to be applied equally to all prisoners, as a cost for incarceration. It strikes me as a peculiar administrative procedure to undertake the cost of processing and giving them the cash, and then a second process to take it away from them.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: The objective of enabling elderly inmates to contribute to their room, board and various expenses is a principle of accountability. It is a good idea for all taxpayers who pay for their housing and for the costs incurred as a result of their incarceration.

In addition, it must not be forgotten that 90 per cent of elderly inmates are often sick and alone. This also enables these individuals to retain a small portion of their benefits to cover those of their needs that are not covered by the Correctional Service. They could also save some money when they return to society. When they are released from prison, they will have to find housing, buy furniture, find food and so on. In addition, these are not people who have the opportunity to take part in the work program in the institutions because these individuals who are 65 years of age and over are unable to work, often as a result of their physical and psychological health problems.

What I find surprising in Bill C-31 is that it concerns the most vulnerable class of prisoners in our society, elderly inmates. I understand why Canadian taxpayers were shocked by the situation of Mr. Olson. However, the Olsons of this world, there are currently about 19 of them in our correctional institutions. The others are elderly and did not commit that type of crime.

You have individuals of all social conditions, with various physical conditions. They are not in good physical health and are often poor. They went into prison because they were poor and they will leave prison even poorer. I do not believe this legislation will be conducive to their social reintegration. If the Canadian government does not promote the social reintegration of inmates, there is a public safety risk. I believe all these factors must be considered.

Elderly persons recognize that they are able, out of government revenues, to take part and contribute — and I am sure they will be pleased to do so — but they also have to be allowed a little money so they can meet their needs in prison. In many cases, they do not work because they are not healthy enough to do so. That has to be taken into account.

[English]

Senator Banks: Thank you, witnesses.

Ms. Rosenfeldt, thank you very much for what you and your husband have set out to do for these many years. Canadians owe you a debt of great gratitude. It would be nice if all Canadians, when faced with situations of all different kinds, reacted the way you and your husband did.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: Thank you, senator.

Senator Banks: No one likes Clifford Olson, or probably the other 18 people to whom Ms. Gagnon referred; I do not know about them. I understand the impetus and the feelings behind this bill, particularly from people who have direct connections with victims. However, the premise behind the bill bothers me. I think it is saying we are going to do this for a reason that does not make any sense. I am not talking about Clifford Olson or whether what he did was right or wrong or sideways, or whether he should ever get out of prison, or any question like that.

The ostensible purpose for this bill, unless I have missed it, is to say that people who are in prison and who are 65 years of age or older should not receive the OAS because they are being looked after, for all intents and purposes, while in prison; they are fed, clothed, and their medical costs are taken care of. I think that is the reason behind this: Why would we pay them twice? However, as I mentioned earlier to a different witness, we do not buy them shaving cream or feminine hygiene products. There are many things we do not buy them.

Old Age Security goes back to the 1950s, based on the premise that people should not be working after age 65. I believe that is the idea behind it. There is an arbitrary social thing that we have accepted that, after age 65, you do not work and have no income, and this is to help.

If the argument is that we ought not to pay people twice, I do not see the difference between paying people twice outside of prison or inside of prison. If the idea is that we will take back income of whatever kind from people who are in prison because they do not deserve to be paid twice, then that principle ought to be applied to everyone in prison, not just those who happen to be over age 65. If it is wrong to double pay someone who is in prison who is aged 65, is it not wrong to double pay someone who is in prison who is 64 or 24?

Ms. Rosenfeldt: I am not clear on what you are saying, Senator Banks. When you are 64, you do not qualify for Old Age Security.

Senator Banks: No, but you might have all sorts of other income.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: We are here on Old Age Security. With Old Age Security, there is a huge difference. We are not talking about the Canada Pension Plan. There are people who have worked in this country and who have ended up in prison. There is fraud, for example. They are not all Clifford Olsons; there is no question about that. However, when they are incarcerated in a federal penitentiary, you must remember they are not good characters to begin with. Some of them are rehabilitative and can be rehabilitated. For sure, we are not talking about all Clifford Olsons, but I want to ensure that there is an understanding that we are not talking about CPP. We are talking about Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. That, I believe, is what I as well as other Canadian taxpayers and others who this bill see as being wrong.

I do not understand what you are saying. I am misunderstanding it. I am sorry.

Senator Banks: Anyone who has been sentenced two years or more is in a federal penitentiary, I think. If someone is 35 years old in a federal penitentiary and has an income from a business that he or she owns that was not affected by the fact of the person's having been placed in prison, then that person is receiving an income.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: That is that person's income. That income that you are talking about is not coming from my pocket or our pockets, from the taxpayer. That is what the taxpayer is upset about. If prisoners have $1 million out there, I am sure Correctional Service of Canada does not care whether they buy 50 tubes of toothpaste or whatever. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is the monies that are funded and coming out of my pocket. Aside from Clifford Olson, I do not think it is right that they benefit twice.

Our organization is not funded. We have put everything into this organization. I will be a beneficiary probably of the Guaranteed Income Supplement as well. That was a personal choice I made years ago. I would be paying taxes on that as well.

That is another question I have. Do they pay taxes on that, at this point?

Senator Banks: It depends on what their gross income is. If they have a gross income that puts them into a taxable bracket, then, yes, they do.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: Sorry, I am getting off track.

Senator Banks: I understand the distinction that you make. You are quite right because it is public money. I was intrigued by the concept of clawing back the cost of a prisoner's incarceration from income of whatever kind if he or she can afford it. The commissioner already has, in principle, the authority to do that in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and I like that idea, whether the prisoner is age 25 or age 65.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: That is right. Why limit it, then, to those who are 65 or older, senator?

Senator Banks: Yes, that is my question.

Ms. Rosenfeldt: The majority cannot pay for their own room and board. You are getting into other issues. It is a good point, but it is on other issues.

The Chair: Let me ask whether any of the other witnesses want to comment on the dialogue we have just had.

Mr. Gaudet: Senator Banks, I wonder whether there are two separate issues that we might be teasing out on the table. The first one is depriving incarcerated individuals from receiving Old Age Security, which I see as a separate issue from whether we ought to be charging people in jails for some aspect of their stay, which could apply to any prisoner at any level.

My understanding of the intent of this bill was that the principle was in response to the former, which is depriving those people in jails access to a non-contributory entitlement from government, to wit, the taxpayers, the provision of benefits that were meant to make ends meet or for costs, the vast majority of which they do not have to undertake.

Senator Banks: You are quite right. I understand that distinction, and you are quite right to make it.

I will stop after this because we are arguing a bit about angels on pins here. You are quite right that I have gone far afield from the bill and am dealing with the principle of the bill.

However, if someone has been sentenced to prison at age 65 for two years, so that they are in a federal penitentiary and will get out in two years, we have a social problem when they get out at age 67 if that person does not have enough money to establish themselves at age 67. That is the other end of the stick from the Clifford Olsons of the world.

Mr. Gaudet, you characterize this bill as the Clifford Olson bill. It is not, because it affects a whole lot of people who are not Clifford Olsons. The number of people affected by this bill is in many multiples — I do not know the number — but it affects many hundreds of people who are at the other end of the stick from Clifford Olson, but I will end there.

Irving Kulik, Executive Director, Canadian Criminal Justice Association: I want it to be clear on the record that we, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, are not an advocacy group. We do not advocate for inmates or offenders in general. We promote research-based criminal policy.

It was difficult for us in putting forth this brief to get away from this concept of seemingly supporting Clifford Olson because we do not. He is a fairly despicable character; everyone is conscious of that, and we all agree on that. I find it inappropriate to name a bill after this individual, and it is not officially his bill, in any case.

Getting into the toothpaste stuff and all that sticky issue, we must recognize as well that offenders do not use their money only to buy toothpaste, shaving cream, toothbrushes, and what not; a fair number of them also send money home to their families. I think we are missing part of the big picture here around assisting some of the individuals to have some start-potential when they get out because some of them do have families and do support their families throughout the course of their incarceration. It is not just the good things in life.

The final point I would like to make is that individuals who are 65 years old and in an institution are quite elderly. In corrections, generally, individuals who are inmates, who have led a life of crime and who are 50 years or more are considered relatively aged. It is the lifestyle they lead, unfortunately, that brought them into prison, and it is what continues later on if they become recidivists and so forth. Therefore, someone who has been in prison up to the age of 65 or longer is quite elderly and has all kinds of needs. Mr. Head referred to the health aspects, and there are all kinds of other aspects.

Washing one's hands of the issue of taking away their pension or their Old Age Security does not excuse or take away from society's and the community's responsibility to those individuals when they get out. They will continue to cost the taxpayer, whether we like it or not — whether for health care, social supports, housing and all those kinds of issues. I want you to reflect on that in terms of having to compensate for part of the loss during the course of that relinquishment, if I can put it that way, of the OAS.

Mr. Gaudet: There is an important sentiment that we experienced at the House of Commons committee and are experiencing again from members of the Senate. It is that you, as legislators, are being careful to be mindful of the fact that this bill affects a few hundred people and that we, as a society, have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. I appreciate that sentiment.

However, those individuals who are receiving Old Age Security and are not in jail are using that money to pay their monthly bills. I am fearful that I hear some arguments that might suggest that the idea of providing OAS allows prisoners to bank the cash to help reintegrate themselves.

That is a noble sentiment. However, I would return to Mr. Kulik's comments, which were along the lines that we do have a moral obligation. We keep talking about sending money to families, but Ms. Gagnon mentioned that over 90 per cent of these prisoners have no families. Therefore, we are talking about a very small element.

Notwithstanding that, we need to be mindful of that element. However, as an obligation, just letting them bank extra cash from OAS in case they have needs is not the appropriate way. Perhaps the committee or the Correctional Service of Canada can properly identify those individuals, how and when they have needs when they are leaving, to properly reintegrate them. I would suggest that is separate from this bill.

The Chair: Anyone else?

That brings this session to a conclusion. I thank all of you who have appeared here, and Mr. Gaudet who is on the video link.

We will now deal with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Does anyone have any opening general comments to make before I do the clause-by-clause? If not, I will proceed.

Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Now we are back to clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: There is no amendment, so shall the bill carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?

Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: Then we do not have any reason to proceed in camera.

Is it agreed that I report this bill, with no amendments and no observations, to the Senate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Banks: Mr. Chair, did you say clause 11?

Senator Cordy: I did not think he did. I am not sure.

The Chair: I did not have a clause 11; I was reading from my script.

Senator Banks: There is clause 11. For the record, I think you ought to ask whether clause 11 carries.

The Chair: Okay. Shall clause 11 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you for noticing that.

Senator Cordy: I noticed that, but no one else did.

The Chair: Sorry about that. I was reading from my script. That completes our meeting for today.

We will do both meetings next week, which are Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning. If, for some reason, the Senate adjourns before the Thursday morning meeting, I will have to get permission for us to meet. Wednesday and Thursday are critical for us to be able to finish the pandemic preparedness plan and also to finish the post-secondary education examination.

We will not get the post-secondary education one done before the end of the year, but we need to get it back to the staff to make the revisions. We have gone through a lot of it, and I would hate to see us lose that time period, so we need to get it back to the staff.

On the pandemic preparedness one, I am absolutely determined to get that done and into the minister's hands by the end of the year. We have to file it with the Senate, but because of the Senate decision yesterday on my motion, we no longer have to file it while the Senate is sitting. We can file it after the Senate has risen.

Senator Eaton: Forestry has been cancelled for next Tuesday afternoon. Is there any wish by the committee, if the Senate should rise on Wednesday, to use that time? It would give us an extra afternoon, Tuesday afternoon, if anyone is available or if there is a wish to do so.

The Chair: Tuesday evening might be a problem.

Senator Cordy: It is a problem.

Senator Eaton: It is from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The Chair: I have no problem with that.

Senator Eaton: That is for your consideration.

Senator Ogilvie: If there is an opportunity, the steering committee will look at it and you can poll the committee.

The Chair: All right. I want you to make note that we will have our regular meetings. With that, we are now adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)