OAS Reform Passed
We have a new law in Canada, or we will when it received Royal Assent. Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, made it through the House of Commons and the Senate.
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under this Act while maintaining entitlement to benefits for, and avoiding a reduction in the amounts payable to, their spouse or common-law partner under this Act.
Thank heavens that our minority government could all agree that Canadians would feel better to know that if you make it to 65 and you are incarcerated for a crime, we won’t send a cheque for old age security to your prison address, even if you apply for one.
The backgrounder to the news release when this bill was introduced in July doesn’t reveal the tally of how much taxpayer funded dollars have been trickling into the bank accounts of elder Canadians convicted of a crime. The Liberal party news release calling on the government to use the savings from this for victims of crime also doesn’t speak to the volume of the problem. The CBC estimated, with the help of Diane Finley that this applies to 400 federal inmates or about $2 million a year.
While I agree that it is absolutely ridiculous that Clifford Olsen has been recieving an OAS cheque, my question is this: Is it just in 2010 that someone noticed that OAS cheques were being sent to Canadians incarcerated in federal penitenaries? As Charlie Brown would say: “Good grief.”
I find it odd that “incarcerated persons” have (all of them) only one (shared) spouse or one common law partner. I would have thought that it might be more probable that there would be one spouse (or equivalent) for each incarcerated person. The Parliamentary Drafter (if that’s the correct term now) is hopelessly confused over pronouns. The CBCA, for example, provides:
Since the Act requires a trustee to be an incorporated entity, I would have thought that it would have been easy to use the singular possessive pronoun “its” . I find it hugely embarrassing to refer foreign lawyers to such ghastly English.
This does not seem right to me. So what if you committed a crime over 65 and are in jail? Why does that vitiate all the money you have paid to the government over the years with the expectation that you get OAP in return? Does going to jail mean you automatically have lost some of your government rights? Next thing you know a convict will not be able to vote or will not be eligible for student loans, etc. Just because someone was convicted of an offense does not mean s/he should be denied some services or rights. The Olsen case is extreme, but I think the Conservatives went overboard to deny payments to everyone who is over 65. You know, these people will eventually get out and they will have no money – how will they live? Gee, I guess they will have to start stealing in order to feed and house themselves. Remember, these people are over 65 – few businesses want to hire someone at age 65 or 70 to work for them, and they may not be in the best health to work very much anyway.
This stupid tough on crime agenda the Reform (oops, I meant Conservative) Party has really does nothing to make Canadians safe. How about investing in the future of young people so they don’t turn to crime in the first place? We are becoming much too American for my tastes. Instead of building jails, why not build community centers, better schools, etc. Let’s give our citizens a future.
My view? This is about show and not substance. It won’t hold up in court – Charter issues – but the fools on the hill (and others who should know better) concluded the political value outweighs respect for the law. When it gets struck down, the usual cast will spew the usual rhetoric to play to their core voters.
Thanks for the comments!
Sue – Perhaps I should clarify that there is a provision that a incarcerated person after release (or just prior to release) may apply for OAS. I am glad you chose to comment on the flaws with the justice agenda potential outcomes. The temporary feel good rhetoric that is driving current legislative change in criminal justice is going to have a long term effect.