Feds cut pension payments to cons

[PMedMoe]

I know this was discussed in another thread regarding members killed in Afghanistan (I believe), but I can't find it.

Article Link

The Conservative government is cutting federal payments to elderly criminals behind bars.

Calling it "offensive and outrageous" that murderers like Clifford Olson are collecting taxpayer-funded benefits while doing time in penitentiaries, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley tabled a bill Tuesday to terminate Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplements of about $1,200 a month to senior cons.

"Canadians who work hard, who contribute to the system, who play by the rules, deserve government benefits such as Old Age Security," she said.

"It's wrong and obviously unfair that prisoners who break the rules receive the same entitlements."

It's also "deeply insulting" to the victims and their families, she said.

Finley estimated the legislation - called Ending Entitlements for Prisoners - will affect some 400 federal prisoners and save the government about $2 million a year initially.

If the provinces and territories sign on to deny payments to inmates serving 90 days or more in provincial jail, savings could reach about $10 million annually by excluding roughly 1,000 offenders.

Spouse or common-law partners of incarcerated offenders will still be eligible for the payments.

"We're not punishing them for the deeds of their spouse," Finley said.

More at link

 

[mariomike]

"His ( Olson ) retirement benefit money has been put in trust.":
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/31/pension-prison-olson.html#socialcomments

"Victims' kin want Clifford Olson's pension bucks:
Families say they have legal claim to serial killer's federal trust-fund cash":
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Victims+want+Clifford+Olson+pension+bucks/2723866/story.html#ixzz0pdvswJZB

 

[Duredain]

I am split on this one. While I agree absolutely that persons in prison should not receive any sort of pension or income supplement, whether their families deserve it or not is an entirely different issue. I am leaning towards a big no right now but (other than the cost associated) it makes sense to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Well, there goes my retirement plan.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I am split on this one. While I agree absolutely that persons in prison should not receive any sort of pension or income supplement, whether their families deserve it or not is an entirely different issue. I am leaning towards a big no right now but (other than the cost associated) it makes sense to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis.

The families have other avenues to access funds if required and they can't\ won't work for it. What do the families that don't have cons eligable for Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplements do?

I'd just like to know what took this so long. I say remove their power to vote next.

 

[mellian]

I'd just like to know what took this so long. I say remove their power to vote next.

I say we figure out how to get more people to vote before being concern about who should not.

 

[Duredain]

The families have other avenues to access funds if required and they can't\ won't work for it. What do the families that don't have cons eligable for Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplements do?

I'd just like to know what took this so long. I say remove their power to vote next.

You make a very good point. I also couldn't agree more on the power to vote. Voting should not be a right, it is a privilege that responsible citizens of a country can and should choose to exercise. Cons are in no way responsible citizens and therefore shouldn't have that right.

@Mellian: People will vote if they find the issues being discussed by the government and opposing parties to be of relevance. The more educated people are on current local and national issues are the more likely they are to vote as well. While I certainly agree that we need more people to vote, there is no reason that there can not be debate on the topic of who can and can not vote at the same time; our brains (I know mine is anyways) are capable of thinking about and discussing more than one thing at a time.

 

[gcclarke]

You make a very good point. I also couldn't agree more on the power to vote. Voting should not be a right, it is a privilege that responsible citizens of a country can and should choose to exercise. Cons are in no way responsible citizens and therefore shouldn't have that right.

Unfortunately, section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms appears to disagree with you on that particular point.

 

[FastEddy]

Unfortunately, section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms appears to disagree with you on that particular point.

Section Three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that constitutionally guarantees all Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly.

Section 3 is one of the provisions in the Charter that cannot be overridden by Parliament or a legislative assembly under Section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause. Section 3's exemption from Section 33 provides extra legal protection to the right to vote and it may prevent Parliament or the provincial governments from disenfranchising any Canadian citizen for ideological or political purposes, among others. Nevertheless, the right to vote and to run in an election is subject to other reasonable limits prescribed by law under Section 1 of the Charter.


See Section 1. If Section 3 was absolute, then a Convicted Imprisoned Child Molesting Murderer could run and be elected as an MP,  that's what you're saying.

Or have I read this wrong or Section 1 ?.

 

[gcclarke]

As far as I can tell, the "reasonable limits" needs to be put into place for a logical reason. Yes, the child molesting murderer cannot run in a federal election. However, the reason is that he's imprisoned, and would be unable to carry out the duties of their office. The fact that he is a child molesting murderer would be the reason that no one would vote for him if he were to run.

But as for the issue of imprisoned people voting, there's no good logistical reason they cannot vote, as a polling station can, easily enough, be set up within the confines of the prison, in order to provide them with an opportuntity to carry out their civic duty.

Should we disenfranchise the child murdering perverts of the world? I don't think so. It's not exactly like they're going to influence any elections. And with the way that the legal system works, any attempt to once again strip them of the right to voet would, invariably, also strip the same right from a fair number of people whose crimes were less egregious.

I found the following from http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/mr126-e.htm

Introduction

In Canada, all citizens are subject to the ordinary laws of general application, both criminal and civil. There is no exemption for parliamentarians, nor is there any immunity or special rights that accrue to parliamentarians, outside of the limited application of parliamentary privilege.

Whenever a member of the House of Commons or the Senate is charged or convicted of a criminal offence, questions invariably arise as to the effect of such charges and convictions on the person’s right to continue as a member of the House or Senate.

The laying of a criminal charge against a member of the House of Commons or Senate has no effect in terms of his or her eligibility to remain in office. Even if convicted, a parliamentarian will automatically lose his or her seat only if sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more, pursuant to section 750 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (until 3 September 1996, a parliamentarian had to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding five years before automatically losing his or her seat). In other cases, however, relying on parliamentary privilege, the House or Senate could take action to expel the member.
Legislative Framework
A. Eligibility to Run for Office

In the case of the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1.01 and the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, make certain people ineligible for membership. Section 65 of the Canada Elections Act lists categories of individuals that are prohibited from being candidates in an election. They include those convicted of a corrupt or illegal practice under the Act within the previous five years; those currently imprisoned in correctional institutions; those not qualified to vote, those who hold certain offices (such as judges, sheriff, Crown Attorney); and members of the legislature of a province or territory, since a person is not permitted to be a member of both the House of Commons and a provincial or territorial legislature at the same time.

As to the Senate, the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out certain requirements of age, citizenship, residency and property that senators must meet in order to be appointed, and continue to meet in order to retain their seats.

Although members can be expelled from Parliament, as will be discussed below, it is not easy to prevent them from running for re-election in any resulting by-election or election. In 1986, the Nova Scotia House of Assembly enacted a law disqualifying persons convicted of certain criminal offences from being nominated as candidates or standing for election to the legislature for a period of five years. The law had been passed after William (“Billy Joe”) MacLean was expelled from the Nova Scotia legislature after pleading guilty to four counts of issuing false receipts for his expenses as a member of the House of Assembly. Mr. MacLean succeeded in having the law struck down by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court as a violation of his Charter rights and the rights of the voters who would have been denied the chance to vote for him.

One thing I'd like to note is that it'll be another 2 years before Conrad Black is once again not barred from office on the basis of his fraud conviction. Of course, he'd have to get his citizenship back, which he started the process to do in 2006. Notwithstanding all this, he still remains a member of the Privy Council.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Killing pensions for prisoners will save about the same amount of money as Parliament's budget for one day.  Some prisoners have family who are now downloaded on the provincial welfare system.  As well, prisoners who have access to some resources on release have a better chance of remaining crime free.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Killing pensions for prisoners will save about the same amount of money as Parliament's budget for one day.  Some prisoners have family who are now downloaded on the provincial welfare system.  As well, prisoners who have access to some resources on release have a better chance of remaining crime free.

It's not about saving money. It's about NOT rewarding a convict, doing time, for the reprehensable act he perpetrated on society to get himself there, with my friggin' tax money!

Again, what do the families of cons, not eligable for Social Security, etc do for funds? They work or they are on the dole anyway. If on the dole, either way it's my taxes, not theirs.

Also, IIRC, spouses of cons receive consideration on their yearly income tax filing. A consideration not available to the rest of the law abiding citizens of Canada.

When a con gets paroled he can start to collect, provided he's ever paid any of his proceeds of crime into the CPP in the first place

 

[Steel Badger]

Prisoners, in Ontario, can also apply for all those lovely credits on their income taxes.
If they file their return, they pocket the cash, as of course they have no income. ( or report none)

Dennis: Who cares that it will only save a few denarii, simply "being" an inmate should not qualify one for a pension. And most long term prisoner's families are already downloaded on prov support systems.




(Edited for Spelling)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Killing pensions for prisoners will save about the same amount of money as Parliament's budget for one day.

So, that's one day we don't have to pay for.

Some prisoners have family who are now downloaded on the provincial welfare system.

They all are, that's one of the benefits of prison.

  As well, prisoners who have access to some resources on release have a better chance of remaining crime free.

Bullshit, the more they have the more temptations to buy whatever turns their crank...........please don't sell me the "only poor people commit crimes" kife.  I've been around the system far too long for that.

 

[Steel Badger]

As I recall, we had all sorts of educational programs for mopes at Guelph Correctional Centre. Even lined em up with jobs through the instructors....

And they still went off the rails when released...............One of mine knocked over his own mother's corner store ( punching her in the stomach in the process) to get the cash for his habit........    And he had been trained in autobady whilst incarcerated.

 

[PMedMoe]

I don't know why you guys are so concerned about the cons' families, as stated right in the article:

Spouse or common-law partners of incarcerated offenders will still be eligible to receive the payments.

"We're not punishing them for the deeds of their spouse," Finley said.

 

[Steel Badger]

We are only concerned in that they keep getting arrested as well Moe, more job security that way

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

autobady

;D

 

[Steel Badger]

;D

Yesterday I could not spell C.O........ today, I IS one!

SOmebody blame my coach officer!!!  Bruce?  Bruce???????

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hey, I taught you everything I know and you still know nothing......................