Maurice Dumas

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in Motion No. 12 I move the following amendment: That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 38, which reads as follows: "Where a decision is made by a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board in respect of a benefit, the Minister may stay-that is what it says-payment of the benefit until the latest of-there are three choices-( a ) the expiration of the period allowed for making an application for

leave to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board, ( b ) the expiration of the period allowed for making an application under the Federal Court Act for judicial review of the decision, and ( c ) where Her Majesty has made an application under the Federal Court Act for judicial review of the decision, the month in which all proceedings in relation to the judicial review have been completed''.

Why delete clause 38? Because the purpose of this amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is to prevent the government from suspending payment of benefits during appeals, since these appeals arise from the government's failure to manage these programs satisfactorily. Senior citizens should not have to pay for the government's incompetence.

Clearly, the government wants to discourage senior citizens from filing appeals, since some people do not have the resources to tide them over this waiting period. Clause 38 of Bill C-54 provides no guarantees for adequate financial security for seniors.

In the report by the National Advisory Council on Aging, as I said before, the disposable incomes of seniors were as follows: the income of families where the head of the household is a senior is 60 to 80 per cent of the income of other Canadian families, depending on the standard used and the region.

In 1989, the average income of families where the head of the household was a senior was only $37,462 or 72 per cent of the income of families where the head of the household was under 65. In 1989, the average income of single persons aged 65 or over was $16,316, while the average income of single persons under 65 was $23,080. A single person, for the purposes of this clause, is a person who lives alone or in a household where he or she is not related to the other members of the household.

Single persons, whatever their age, tend to have relatively low incomes. Consequently, the gap between seniors and the rest of the population is not quite as wide for those who live alone as it is for families, but it is still significant.

By allowing himself to stay payment of the benefits during a review or an appeal, the minister is depriving recipients of money they need to live on, as it is often their only source of income.

Seventy-two per cent of retired women and 50 per cent of retired men receive old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. Only 5 per cent of seniors make more than $50,000. The life expectancy of seniors has increased. We must ensure that their extra years of life are satisfactory.

By tightening the conditions under which seniors can appeal what they consider an unfair decision, the government is trying to discourage them by reducing their income. Yet, the government itself admits that old age benefits are the only source of income for a considerable proportion of recipients.

Let us keep in mind that the federal government has already decided to reduce the deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable by lowering the age credit. As a result, all taxpayers aged 65 and over can apply for a tax credit equal to 17 per cent of $3,482 at the federal level and 20 per cent of $2,200 in Quebec. This credit is non-refundable, that is to say, it applies to the tax payable, and the excess portion cannot be refunded. The unused portion of the credit can, however, be transferred to the spouse.

On May 31, 1994, I rose in this House to oppose reducing the age credit. I reiterated that the feeble efforts to reduce spending were being made on the backs of the most vulnerable. During that speech, I also asked the minister responsible for seniors a question about the plan to install voice mail to answer inquiries from seniors.

The minister simply told us about the speed of the proposed service. I explained that many seniors are reluctant to use such a service and that they express this opinion on a regular basis. If you ask seniors how clause 38 will affect their decision about whether or not to appeal a decision, the answer is clear: seniors will not appeal because, for most of them, old age benefits are the only source of income.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, cannot remain silent and let the government reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors. Clause 38 of Bill C-54 must be deleted so that the government will not be able to stay payment of benefits during the appeal process.

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the last amendment to Bill C-54. In Motion No. 12 I move the following amendment:

[Auditor General's Report, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, the auditor general released the results of an audit by his office involving more than 300 public servants. The results are alarming. It appears that 33 per cent of federal public servants are afraid to lose their jobs if they blow the whistle on cases of conflict of interest involving their boss. Even worse, 60 per cent of senior managers would take no action if the process for awarding a contract to a single supplier was clouded in any way.

This is intolerable, and the government must show some leadership here. But how, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister constantly give preferential treatment to friends of the government? The Liberals, who said they would defend integrity in government, still have a long way to go to deliver what they promised in their red book. It will take more than words to restore the public's confidence.

[Interparliamentary Delegation, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as deputy chair of the Canadian Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

This is the report of Canada's official delegation to the 93rd Inter-Parliament Conference held in Madrid, Spain, from March 27 to April 1, 1995.

[Old Age Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before the minister rhymes off his automatic reply that the opposition is trying to scare seniors, will he admit that this proposal will erode the financial autonomy for which women fought so hard, and that it will discriminate against them?

[Old Age Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

According to an information sheet addressed to the staff of the Department of Human Resources Development the government has made decisions regarding reforms to the old age pension system, and I quote: "The amount of old age security benefits will be based on combined family income".

Since it seems that the government has already made this decision, will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us how much he hopes this measure will save the government?

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I move the following amendments to motions Nos. 5 and 6. In Motion No. 5:

That Bill C-54, in clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 39, on page 15, with the following:

"23. Subsection 37(4) of the Act is replaced".

In Motion No. 6:

That Bill C-54, in clause 23, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 16, with the following:

"the Minister shall, unless the person has-".

Madam Speaker, our purpose is not to delete this clause altogether but to amend it. The one-year period for collecting overpayments is maintained and the minister is obliged to remit the amount owing in the cases specified. Consequently, subsection 37(2) is maintained and the one-year statute of limitation continues to apply, and I quote:

(2) Where a person has received or obtained a benefit payment to which the person is not entitled, or a benefit payment in excess of the amount of that benefit payment or the excess amount, as the case may be, constitutes a debt due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in proceedings commenced

(a) at any time, where that person made a wilful misrepresentation or committed fraud for the purpose of receiving or obtaining that amount or excess amount; and

(b) in any case where paragraph (a) does not apply, at any time before the end of the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which that amount or excess amount was received or obtained.

In his report, the Auditor General estimates that debts arising from pension overpayments are occurring in the range of $120 million to $220 million each year. According to the Auditor General, past efforts to prevent and detect overpayments have been minimal and largely ineffective. These figures appear in the Auditor General's report of 1993, on pages 483 and 486.

The Auditor General also indicated that "over 90 per cent of appeals relate to claims for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. Over the past five years, the percentage of disability claims denied rose steadily and now stands at 44 per cent. Over the same period, the percentage of those denials that were appealed also increased, from 36 per cent in 1988-89 to 60 per cent in 1992-93. Prior-year statistics indicate that the majority of these appeals will be successful". These figures appear in the 1993 Auditor General's report on page 488.

Furthermore, the Auditor General estimates overpayments for disability pensions alone at $35 million. A provision that would allow the minister to suspend benefits during the appeal process, together with the increase in the number of appeals justified and filed by the department, might be seen as an underhanded way to reduce the number of overpayments.

Similarly, the decision to repeal this section and thus repeal the statute of limitation of one year on recovery of overpayments must have been dictated by the government's inability to process appeals on time.

The government appears to be incapable of doing anything other than tightening its rules and increasing the number of appeals to avoid overpayment. Seniors will therefore be the victims of the government's inability to resolve its administrative problems.

Furthermore, following the delay in issuing guaranteed income supplement cheques for seniors, which occurred near the end of April, I raised the following question in the House regarding the government's inability to manage files regarding seniors on April 27:

"Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Since last Friday, Communication Québec, MP's offices and even the PMO have been flooded with calls from obviously very concerned pensioners. According to the Consumer Help Office, approximately 258,000 pensioners will see their old age pension cheques reduced by 50 per cent.

How can the minister explain that so many seniors received or will receive this year a pension cheque not including the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled?"

I also asked the minister a supplementary question, which was the following:

Mr. Speaker, does the minister deny that the Department of Human Resources Development's difficulty in processing requests is creating hardship this year, mostly among seniors?

The Minister of Human Resources Development's answer was alarming, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, if in some cases there have been overpayments or problems that do not fit the regulations, of course we will be sending out these letters. But to make the kinds of exaggerated claims the hon. member has, purely to frighten and scare people, is frankly not the responsibility of a good member of Parliament.

In the May 3 issue of the Journal de Montréal , headlines such as ``Vraie course contre la montre pour le supplément de revenu''-race against time for the income supplement-clearly expose the problems facing seniors with low incomes. They are being penalized by the government's inability to fix its bureaucratic problems.

Journalist Monique Richer mentioned in her article that people who are 65 years old or older and who did not receive their guaranteed income supplement at the end of the month of April have been lining up since the beginning of the week at Guy Favreau Complex to find out what is going on.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois therefore proposes that the one-year limit on overpayments not occasioned by fraud be retained-there would be no limit in the case of fraud-so as to force the government to improve the management of the program and not unduly penalize seniors, who could have to pay back major sums a number of years after an error had been made. It would also force the minister to forgive overpayments in the following instances: when a debt cannot be recovered sufficiently quickly; when the costs of recovery are likely to be at least as high as the debt itself; when repayment would cause undue hardship for the debtor; and when the debt is the result of incorrect advice or an administrative error.

In closing, Bill C-54 provides in these instances that the minister "may" reimburse. We propose that there be no discretionary power in the above instances in order to protect the interests of seniors.

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-54, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 39, on page 15, with the following:

"23. Subsection 37(4) of the Act is replaced"

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-54, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 16, with the following:

"the Minister shall, unless the person has".

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, obviously, I fully support my colleague for Mercier. However, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the provisions of Bill C-54 aiming to change access to some information because the government intends to increase the number of departments, organizations or even individuals that will have access to personal information used in the administration of the acts that will be amended by this bill.

Under the previous act, that is to say the one that is currently in force, the following organizations have access to this information: the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance, the Department of Supply and Services, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, Statistics Canada, and the provincial authority. Those organizations can have access to that information as long as it deals with the entitlement of beneficiaries or the amount of benefit, or if their disclosure is essential to the legislation's application.

One has to be very careful, when trying to obtain personal information on senior citizens since it could be used for other purposes. We have to protect our seniors against potential abuse. The government did not prove that disclosing that privileged information was necessary and essential. The government always has to prove to senior citizens that the information collected will not be used abusively.

Governments interfere more and more in the privacy of people, as we saw recently in the Bristow case. It should be pointed out that the information provisions of Bill C-54 add the following organizations to those departments which can have access to such information: the Canada Post Corporation, a decision which we oppose; the Correctional Service of Canada; the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; members of Parliament who intervene on behalf of applicants or beneficiaries; any other person designated by the minister as a health care professional; and the Department of Veterans Affairs, as regards the administration of the above-mentioned acts or any other federal act administered by that department.

Consequently, some information will be accessible to a larger number of departments, including Canada Post. The government claims that it is a good thing to include that corporation, on the grounds that, through the use of new techniques, it could help accelerate the processing of cheques to pensioners. It is obvious that the government is experiencing enormous difficulties solving its administrative problems. However, it has not demonstrated the need to transmit information to Canada Post.

Such demonstration is essential if the Bloc Quebecois is to support that section of the bill. We particularly object to the inclusion of that corporation, because it is increasingly more present in the lives of Canadians. It has increasingly more information on each of us. Although the collection of that information is often necessary, the government must always justify beyond any doubt such new intrusions in the private lives of citizens.

The government feels that the changes to the disclosure provisions do not represent a major departure from the current rules. The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with that statement; indeed, the communication of confidential information to the Canada Post Corporation is a major change. Even though these changes must comply with the Privacy Act, we feel that it is not acceptable to include Canada Post.

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25, on page 21, with the following:

"section 84(2), or, subject to the regulations, any".

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20, on page 22, with the following:

"section 81 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or subsection, and the Commissioner of".

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-54, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page 22, with the following:

"decision made in respect of an appeal under sub-section 84(2), may".

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-54, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 12, on page 29, with the following:

"(2) Subsection 108(3) of the Act is".

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-54, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 33, with the following:

"53. Subsections 35(1)".

Madam Speaker, I now address the House on Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

In Motion No. 1, I propose the following amendment:

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 1.(2), which reads as follows: "Review Tribunal" means a Canada Pension Plan- Old Age Security Review Tribunal established under section 82 of the Canada Pension Plan.

This amendment put forward by the official opposition is aimed at keeping separate the appeal processes of the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program.

Bill C-54 integrates the appeal processes of the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program. Yet, the auditor general said in his report that the two-tiered appeal process for Old Age Security permits the satisfactory settlement of the few

cases there are. The process is simple, fast and informal, and cases are heard in the regions where the appellants live.

As for the Canada Pension Plan's three-tiered appeal process, the auditor general criticized it quite openly. So why propose to integrate both processes and use the Canada Pension Plan's process deemed deficient by the auditor general?

The government is not simplifying the appeal process in any way. On the contrary, client services will not be improved one bit with these measures.

Under clause 34, page 20, the first level of appeal of the Canada Pension Plan will become a "reconsideration". Under clause 16, page 8, the reconsideration which is presently optional in the case of Old Age Security will become a mandatory minister's review.

Under clause 35(1), page 21, the Review Tribunals of the Canada Pension Plan will be authorized to hear appeals relating to Old Age Security and, under clause 35(4), page 22, appeals that were directed to the former review committees of the Canada Pension Plan.

Finally, the Pension Appeals Board will be authorized to appoint temporary members. At the present time, someone who is dissatisfied with a decision made in accordance with the Canada Pension Plan is entitled to three levels of appeal.

The first level appeals are directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development. The second level appeals are heard by the Review Tribunals established in accordance with the Act. Finally, the third level appeals are heard by the Pension Appeals Board.

In 1993-94, there were 23,046 first level appeals for an increase of 0.5 per cent compared to the previous year. Of that number, 83 per cent concerned disability benefits. A total of 27,077 appeals were processed during those two years.

Also, 3,300 second level appeals were filed. Of that number, 2,675 were dealt with. During the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Pension Appeals Board received 498 new benefits appeals made under section 83, chapter C-8 of the Canada Pension Plan. It heard 274 of those appeals. Moreover, at the request of one of the parties, the board suspended 55 appeals to be heard later.

The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, does not believe that streamlining appeals made under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan is an improvement. To be consistent with the proposed amendment to Motion No. 1, I present the following amendment to Motion No. 8:

"That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 25 because it combines the Old Age Security appeal process with the Canada Pension Plan appeal process".

Therefore the following clause, clause 25 must be deleted: "The definition of "Review Tribunal" in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Pension Plan is replaced by the following: "Review Tribunal" means a Canada Pension Plan-Old Age Security Review Tribunal established under section 82".

To be consistent with the amendment to Motion No. 1, Motion No. 9 should read as follows:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25, on page 21, with the following:

"section 84(2), or, subject to the regulations, any".

The purpose is to eliminate any reference to appeals to the Review Tribunal.

For the sake of consistency, Motion No. 10 should read:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20, on page 22, with the following:

"section 81 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or subsection, and the Commissioner of".

To be consistent, Motion No. 11 should read as follows:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page 22, with the following:

"decision made in respect of an appeal under sub-section 84(2), may".

Consistency is needed regarding Motion No. 14 to keep the appeal process separate:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 29, with the following:

"(2) Section 108 of the Act."

Motion No. 16 also refers to appeals made under the Old Age Security Act:

"That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 50".

The same applies to Motion No. 17:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 33, with the following:

"53. Subsections 35(1)".

I will leave it to the member for Mercier to explain the official opposition's amendment to Motion No. 3, which goes along the same lines as my proposed amendments, since it deletes clause 16 in Bill C-54, because on one hand, this clause provides for a ninety day period before appealing to the minister against a decision and, on the other hand, it states that the minister may stay payment of the benefits during the appeal process.

Moreover, I have a proposed amendment to Motion No. 12 which is in agreement with my colleague's.