Human Resources Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[Graeme Truelove, Procedural Clerk]

Good afternoon, honourable members. I see a quorum.

As Mr. Allison is absent and as the two vice-chairs have declined to take the chair today, if it is the will of the committee to elect an acting chair, I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Mr. Savage.

[Graeme Truelove]

Mr. Lake nominates Mr. Savage. Are there any other motions?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, January 30, 2007, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, I call the meeting to order.

Welcome. I want to thank the witnesses who have taken time to join us here today by teleconference. Thank you very much.

We will begin by asking for presentations by the witnesses who've taken time to be with us, and then we will go to questions.

We will begin with Monsieur Salembier. You have seven minutes, sir, sept minutes.

[Henri Salembier, National President, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées]

We would like to thank you for inviting us to participate in these committee hearings. We are pleased to be here today.

I am the National President of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, i.e. seniors. We have 45 chapters in Quebec and 25,000 members, in addition to partners, for a total of 150,000 members.

As our name indicates, the association advocates on behalf of seniors in Quebec. For some years now, we have been defending the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Without further delay, I’m going to hand things over to Mr. Claude Major, our Director General, who will present our brief.

Thank you.

[Claude Major, Director General, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées]

Hello everyone. This is my first time before a committee. I’m told you just have to jump right in, so here goes.

As the president said a few moments ago, we deal with a whole range of issues facing seniors: ageism, abuse, exploitation, violence, home support and home care, health, economic and social rights, transportation, taxation, etc. The bill before the committee is of great interest to us, and we wanted to share our comments and reactions with you.

For years, our organization has lobbied government to simplify access to the programs in question. We therefore agree with your desire through this bill to facilitate the application process and make it easier to access the Guaranteed Income Supplement benefit.

We have also denounced the fact that a majority of seniors are unaware of existing assistance programs. In Quebec alone, for years, seniors lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars intended for them. We therefore view your desire to raise public awareness about these programs and to make them accessible to as many eligible seniors as possible in a positive light.

More specifically with regard to the Old Age Security Program, the provision to waive the requirement that Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance recipients reapply for these benefits once an initial application has been made is also an excellent initiative.

The simplification of the income tax return for seniors speaks to another one of our concerns.

As part of the broader struggle against poverty, we have deplored the lack of harmonization among the various programs, measures, departments and levels of government. We look favourably on your desire to work more closely with provincial governments to harmonize the assistance programs for seniors, particularly those addressed by this bill.

We only saw the actual wording of the bill a few days ago and are, therefore, unable to comment on the more specific and technical aspects of its provisions. We are therefore addressing considerations of a more general nature.

We appreciate the aspects we have just mentioned, but would nonetheless like to point out to the committee how important it is to implement the bill in a way that reflects its intentions.

We thank you for your invitation to appear before this committee and for your attention to our comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Merci, monsieur Major.

Mr. Bajwa, can you hear us in Mississauga? I think we'll let you go next, since you've been waiting patiently. Please go ahead. You have seven minutes.

[Balkar Bajwa, Principal, Old Age Benefits Forum]

Hello. Good afternoon.

Mr. Chair, members, ladies and gentlemen, my topic is equitable treatment of all Canadian seniors in the granting of old age benefits.

We, the members of Old Age Benefits Forum, Ontario chapter, under the leadership of the Old Age Benefits Forum of Canada (Registered), which is based in Vancouver, are struggling to amend the Old Age Security Act to remove the unfair 10-year residency clause for certain immigrants who come from China, South Asia, Arabia, South America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and others.

The Old Age Security Act lays a condition of 10 years' residency on certain Canadians who are from areas of the world that have no so-called reciprocal social agreement with Canada. This condition was imposed by an amendment of the OAS Act in 1977. Thus, it splits the plus-65 Canadians into two categories: beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of old age benefits.

Once, in the year 1977, the Canadian government tried to rectify this unfairness by bringing in section 40 of the act. Effective July 1, 1977, the Canadian government was empowered to enter into social agreements with the countries of the immigrants, and sponsored immigrants from those countries that would be portable to Canada, towards the fulfillment of the grant of OAS benefits.

Up to March 6, 1996, senior immigrants coming from social agreement countries could receive benefits after as little as one year of residency in Canada at one-fortieth the flat rate of full OAS benefits, GIS, and SPA. Against this, immigrants from non-social agreement countries have to wait 10 years, and thereafter are paid OAS benefits at 10/40 the flat rate of full benefits, plus GIS and SPA. In both cases, the total sum of OAS plus GIS is the same. Thus, evidently there is a glaring unfairness in the matter of OAS benefits. This unfairness has continued right from July 1, 1977.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Mr. Bajwa, just one second. We're having some trouble with translation. You're speaking too fast.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, the difficulty the interpreters are having stems from the sound and the accent, and is preventing us from grasping what the witness is saying. Maybe he could speak more slowly.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Okay.

I would ask you, Mr. Bajwa, if you could, to speak a little bit slower so the translation can catch up. We're translating here. So if you could speak just a little bit slower, we'll allow you a little extra time.

Please continue.

[Balkar Bajwa]

Okay. It would be opportune to give a brief glimpse of the story of our struggle for the amendment of this section of the OAS Act.

The Right Honourable Paul Martin, in a number of meetings with the OABF in Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver, expressed his unequivocal support and commitment--and also publicly announced this on certain occasions--to resolve this genuine issue. After a cabinet meeting in Kelowna, when this point was raised by a prominent Liberal leader of B.C., J. Minhas, the Right Honourable Prime Minister informed him that a high-ranking committee of four ministers had been asked to look into the matter and make a positive decision. Nothing came out of that promise.

The government changed in the beginning of 2006. Our campaign for this genuine cause continued. Throughout the last year, we e-mailed petitions in this connection to all the MPs, irrespective of their party affiliation. Also, a campaign of personal meetings with MPs of the GTA continued. We presented a petition to them by handouts.

The campaign bore significant fruit when Ms. Colleen Beaumier, MP for Brampton West, moved a private amendment, Bill C-362, in this connection on October 25, 2006. Its first reading is due, so we were told, in this session of the House Commons.

We personally lobbied MPs Ruby Dhalla, Gurbax Malhi, Navdeep Bains, Roy Cullen, Omar Alghabra, Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, and others. Agreeing with and supporting our cause, MPs Gurbax Malhi and Ruby Dhalla have given statements on the floor of the House of Commons in support of this issue.

To make our struggle wide-based, we have joined with the Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network of Toronto, comprised of the Chinese Canadian National Council's Toronto chapter, the Hispanic Development Council, the African Canadian Social Development Council, the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, and other seniors groups. After deliberations, the network’s steering committee passed an all-party resolution for immigrant seniors’ income security in order to help improve the living conditions of immigrant seniors in Canada irrespective of their country of origin.

It reads:

Whereas the maintenance of strong, healthy, and vibrant families with the full knowledge of each individual that he/she enjoys an equal status in the eyes of the law of the land is a core Canadian value;

Whereas the unification and reunification of older adults and seniors with their families in Canada through immigration forms a core aspect of the promotion and attainment of strong, healthy, vibrant families in Canada;

Whereas newcomer seniors suffer unfairly from the 10-year residency requirement under Canada’s income security programs;

Whereas Canada’s Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and social assistance programs are in fact age, capacity, and need-based benefit programs, not individual contribution-based income security plans;

and so on.

Therefore, we resolved to recommend that the government amend the Old Age Security Act, the regulations and policies, to eliminate the 10-year residency requirement for OAS and GIS; waive the enforcement of sponsorship obligations through government cost recovery schemes as a condition of financial support in situations of genuine immigration sponsorship breakdown; establish a nominal public transit card for all seniors in Canada that costs just $45, as it does in British Columbia, so that all seniors will be able to overcome the isolation they suffer because of the cost of using public transit.

These measures are jointly recommended--

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

You have one minute left, please, one minute to wrap up.

[Balkar Bajwa]

I'm concluding.

These measures are jointly recommended so as to reiterate our joint commitment to the principle of respect for human dignity.

The seniors network has also drafted a public petition, which is based on the all-party resolution, in order to demonstrate public support for the issue. Apart from English, this petition was translated into various ethnic languages. So far, we have received petitions signed by a cross-section of about 15,000 people from the GTA. These signed petitions are in the process of being presented to the government and MPs.

A parliament that can impose a condition also has the power and authority to remove it through an amendment. This is so much so that even when one becomes a citizen of Canada, this condition continues to hang like a sword of Damocles.

It is submitted that there should not be two classes of Canadian citizens in matters of OAB. This is highly painful. It is a common cause of your senior voters. Action on behalf of the genuine demand of seniors will be in honour, respect and recognition of the seniors. Hence it is requested that you act, and act determinedly, for the amendment of this act.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bajwa. In case the translation didn't work completely, our staff will be contacting you to get your notes to give to committee members. Please stay with us for questions, if you would.

We will go to Mr. Richard Shillington, who is appearing as an individual. You've taken the time to give us some notes. I'll give you seven minutes, and I'll hold my finger up when there's a minute left.

Then we will go to Mr. Dussault of the FSNA, who has now joined us.

Mr. Shillington, seven minutes.

[Richard Shillington, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-36, which seeks to make some changes to the legislation for old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan.

I would like to begin by emphasizing the critical importance of these programs to the financial health of seniors, particularly those who retire without an employer pension plan. Without these programs, these seniors would be destitute. Even with these programs, the circumstances of low-income seniors are not comfortable.

For a single senior without a pension plan, the average income is $15,000, and 82% of single seniors who don't have an employer pension plan live on less than $20,000 a year. So you can imagine the circumstances that they would live on if they weren't getting OAS, GIS, or CPP.

The purpose of these programs is income security. It was said to me very well by a friend the other day: income security, the security of their income. We want income security, so that seniors aren't destitute and so that working-age Canadians can work knowing that these programs will be in place when they retire.

This income security is only achieved if seniors receive the benefits that are provided for them in the legislation. The ultimate purpose of the legislation is to place money into the hands of seniors. I'd like people to remember that.

Some of you will know that I became involved in this issue in the fall of 2001, when it was discovered that some 300,000 seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it. We've made some progress in this area, and this committee's report at that time was called “The Guaranteed Income Supplement: the Duty to Reach All”. But I do not think we have achieved the objective of reaching all. We're some distance from it for each of the programs: OAS, GIS, and CPP.

Bill C-36 is the first legislation in the last six years that I recall actually addressing the procedures for applying for these benefits. It's the first legislation since the realization in 2001 that hundreds of thousands of seniors were not getting the benefits they were entitled to. To my mind, Bill C-36 makes some minor improvements, but it is some distance from addressing the major remaining problems with the administration and legislation of these programs.

The remaining problems are discussed in my brief. They include take-up, which is the policy wonk's term for people getting the benefits they're entitled to.

Retroactivity is the provision to provide benefits to people who, either because of an error on the department's part or their own, are not receiving the benefits they were entitled to.

Interest and retroactivity is an issue I would like people to discuss for a minute, and it's dealt with in Bill C-36. We could talk about the current practice, what the legislation provides for, and what it should provide for.

Application for early CPP is discussed in my brief very quickly.

Regarding the determination of administrative error, the current legislation provides full retroactive benefits when there is an administrative error. But I think there are problems in what we mean by administrative error and who decides when an administrative error has been made.

Regarding the design of the GIS clawback, some of you know that this is RRSP season, and my name appears in the press regularly advising low-income senior who will be on GIS when they retire that the last thing they want is an RRSP. Also if you're a low-income senior, working will not primarily benefit you. You'll face an effective tax rate of well over 75%. So presently the design of the GIS, in terms of the clawback, is dysfunctional.

In the first piece of legislation that we've seen in some years, I would have liked to see some provision to address all of these issues in Bill C-36.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shillington.

We'll go to Mr. Dussault, who is with the Federal Superannuates National Association. Mr. Dussault, you have seven minutes.

[Bernard Dussault, Senior Research and Communications Officer, Federal Superannuates National Association]

Good day. Thank you for inviting the Federal Superannuates National Association to appear as a witness.

We represent the Public Services, Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pensioners and pensioned federally appointed judges. All these people, once they reach the age of 65, receive the Old Age Security pension and they also receive a pension from the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, sometimes before the age of 65. Even though our mandate primarily concerns Public Service or public sector pensions, we are also concerned about everything that is happening with respect to the Old Age Security pension and the Canada Pension Plan.

Clearly, we can only be pleased with the amendments proposed under Bill C-36. There is only one aspect that I would like to bring to your attention, as a result of comments I’ve been getting from members of our association when problems arise. In 99% of the cases, everything is fine, but one of the things that irritate our members the most is when there is an administrative error resulting in an overpayment. Not only do they have to reimburse the overpayment, but also pay interest.

We agree that the overpayment and interest should be paid in the case of fraud, but these plans are so complicated that in many cases, when errors occur, people can’t tell. I don’t know if anything can be done in this regard, but I just wanted you to know that it is an important issue, not only for the less well-off, but also especially for the less well-off who do not understand what is going on.

Thank you very much.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Merci, monsieur Dussault.

Thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time. We will go to some rounds of questions, beginning with the Liberal Party.

Mr. Silva, seven minutes.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by first thanking all the witnesses for their very fine presentations. This is obviously an issue that we are all very much concerned about here on the committee. This particular bill is something that also interests the vast majority of members, because it affects a very large percentage of our population. It's something that will affect probably all of us at one time or another.

The whole issue of access to information was certainly something we discussed here at the committee--how we can make sure the different cultural groups, also those who are illiterate, and of course the most marginal people in our society get the information that is needed so that they're aware of the programs that are in place. Mr. Shillington talked at length about the fact that so many of these individuals who are entitled to benefits are not receiving their benefits, probably because a good chunk of them don't know.

Certainly as a member of Parliament I get many constituents coming to see me in my office who have no idea what's out there, not just in terms of the supplement they can get for their pensions, but also in terms of housing and how to apply for these programs. There's a great need for us to assist in educating and providing resources to agencies to do outreach for these people. It's something that greatly concerns me, because if we aren't getting that information out, these people are not fully benefiting from the programs we have out there.

I'd like to see if somebody has any comment on how we can better do outreach to get this information to people.

[Richard Shillington]

I'll start with an example comparing the Canada Pension Plan to the Quebec Pension Plan. The latest data I have is that there are 55,000 Canadians who haven't applied for their CPP retirement benefits. On the whole, we know who they are and where they live. There is an unknown number who haven't applied for their survivor benefits, which I gather is a relatively unknown program. Many people I talk to have not heard that there's something called survivor benefits, let alone orphans' benefits.

Through friends, I'm told that in Quebec there is actually a much better way of reaching out to the Quebec Pension Plan beneficiaries. Through the offices of the leader of the Bloc, a researcher phoned me one time and asked me for some information. I asked them to do me a favour and to phone the Quebec Pension Plan office and ask: if there are 55,000 people not receiving their eligible CPP benefits, how many in Quebec are not getting their QPP benefits? The call came back in a couple of days--there were virtually none, because they know where they are; they know where they live. They use computer systems to identify them. So when you renew your driver's licence or your health card, the computer will say that you should be signed up for your QPP. I have no direct knowledge of this, but I'm told they will phone. They will, I am told, knock on your door.

For those 55,000 who are not getting retirement benefits and an unknown number, likely hundreds of thousands, not getting survivor benefits, that is unnecessary.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much for that comment. I was not aware of that.

We had the departmental staff here last week. That would have been a good question to ask them. Of course they will argue that there are certain things that cannot be done because of the fact that certain rules—I'm not sure what all the rules are, because I'm always reluctant to accept the system as is. There are a lot things that can always improve it, but the system, as is, tells us that basically you can't share information for reasons of confidentiality. I'm not sure how that is handled at the Quebec level. I certainly would like to know more about it.

Is there anybody here from the department who would like to comment on that? None of the witnesses here is from the department, so we'll have to leave it for another day, but it's certainly something I'd like to have more information about.

Thank you.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a point that we should have the department here when we are having witnesses, because I think it would be good to have that on the record.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich. We know that the officials will be here for clause-by-clause next Tuesday.

You have a couple of minutes left, Mr. Silva, if you have anything else. No.? Okay, thank you very much.

We'll go to the Bloc, to Monsieur Lessard, for seven minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would be pleased to use the time not used by my colleague.

I also want to thank our friends who are here today. I call them our friends because they are people who are very concerned about the situation of seniors, in particular, and I know that they are doing a lot to help them.

Thank you for being here as witnesses.

My colleague, Mr. Silva, raised a question regarding public servants. Mr. Dussault’s intervention makes me want to ask for an interpretation of Bill C-36. It was my understanding—maybe the officials can confirm it for us—that Bill C-36 had addressed this problem, i.e. in the case of an administrative error, but not fraud, no interest has to be paid. However, we should check that this is indeed the case. If not, maybe an amendment should be brought to address the issue. However, I thought I had read that in Bill C-36. It will be up to us, along with the officials, to determine what is what.

I will start by addressing a few comments to the AQDR, the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, and to Mr. Salembier, but perhaps there are others who would also like to respond.

I was somewhat surprised by the issue of retroactivity. None of you mentioned that benefits should be retroactive more than for the eleven-month period provided for in the bill. In fact, many seniors were entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and didn’t get it for the reasons raised by my colleague, Mr. Silva. They didn’t know they were entitled, or given their civil status, they weren’t in a position to know, whether it was for reasons of language, disability, illiteracy, etc.

So why didn’t you bring it up? We were, in fact, considering whether we should go for a period longer than eleven months, because of how unfair the situation was for people who were entitled to the benefits.

I would like to hear what you have to say.