Human Resources Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

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

Mr. Major, do you have any comments in regards to the bill?

[Claude Major]

No.

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

So you pretty much agree with each of the things in the bill?

[Claude Major]

Yes.

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

Okay.

Mr. Salembier, would you agree with that as well then?

[Henri Salembier]

Yes. I agree with the bill. However, like Mr. Shillington, I am still wondering why we get our blue card at 65, but have no way of knowing if we are eligible for Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits. There’s a problem somewhere.

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

Right.

And further to my question then, Mr. Dussault, did you want to make any comments about the provisions that are actually in the bill?

[Bernard Dussault]

No, that's fine. And thanks for the clarification about the interest, because what I saw was not complete, and this lady explained to me that this is overridden by the regulations. So no problem, and thanks for the clarification.

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

Mr. Bajwa, did you have anything to add?

[Balkar Bajwa]

Yes, I like that GIS is assured to me without any condition on years of residency, because it is an income supplement to provide minimum income security, so it should not be tied or tagged to 10 years of residency.

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

Okay, thank you.

This is my last comment, because I think my time is almost up. I guess the comment and where I'm going with it is to suggest that we do have one of the most generous programs of this type--for the treatment of seniors--in the world, and I agree, having listened to Mr. Shillington, with some of the comments he made. There are things that all of you have said and that a lot of other people have said, ways that we might be able to improve it, but I think what we need to do is pass this bill that we have, which is going to improve the system, and continue. It's a process of continuous improvement.

We can always do better with all of our social programs in this country and keep listening to ideas. I think that's where we need to go. We need to take this step forward to make sure there are no backward steps in here. We definitely don't want that. It doesn't sound as though there are too many concerns about that. We'll take this step forward, and then we'll look at ways in which we can continue to improve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I would remind members and remind Mr. Bajwa that with the video conference, there's a little bit of a delay in the sound, so just be patient with that.

We're going to go to second-round questions, at five minutes. Could we have the Honourable Geoff Regan, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bajwa, I'm just going over your testimony. As you heard, there were some problems early on with some of the translation, and I hope that was worked out later. Could you go over the number one, two, and perhaps three things you think need to be changed in this bill? What are the most important things to change here?

[Balkar Bajwa]

I estimate that the first one is the most significant and important, because it concerns income security for seniors. The others were just general resolutions by all the communities of the GTA, which I have mentioned--that is, Africans, Chinese, Hispanic, South Asians. All the rest of the points can be taken up by respective governments, but the first one, which is concerned with the federal government, is the condition of 10 years of residency for old age security income.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So the issue of the 10 years' residency is the one you are concerned with. You would have no residency requirement whatsoever. Is that correct?

[Balkar Bajwa]

Yes. I think it should be the same as it is for others who get these benefits after one year of their residency here. I'd like it to go to the extent that the moment he becomes a citizen, after three years, no condition of residency should be tagged on his back because he is coming from a particular country. I'd like to stress the point that when he has become a Canadian citizen, then the stamp of the previous country should not be on his back anymore, and he should not be discriminated against because of that. Now he is a Canadian citizen and a resident of Canada.

Why discriminate between two citizens, with one getting the whole array of old age security benefits and the others not getting them? What is the sense? Suppose I get citizenship now after completing all the formalities. Why should I wait for another five or six years? I'm a Canadian citizen. There should not be two classes of Canadian citizens. This is my submission.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bajwa.

Do any of the other witnesses have a comment or view on this question? I welcome their comments.

They're suddenly very shy and reticent to comment on that question.

Mr. Shillington, you heard Ms. Charlton comment, but she's talking about the challenge we have if you propose amendments that would cause the treasury to expend money. The Speaker has ruled in the past that this requires what's called a royal recommendation, which means a minister must recommend the bill or the provisions in the bill. That's what limits the ability of members on a committee like to this to make amendments. They can make them and they can overrule the chair, but when it gets back to the House, it ends up being ruled out of order.

With that in mind, what would you say are the key elements, aside from things that would cost additional dollars—significant dollars, I'd say—that ought to be changed?

[Richard Shillington]

I don't know enough about the procedures here, but any changes to the regulations around CPP wouldn't affect the consolidated revenue fund. They would only affect the CPP fund. When you say only the minister can talk about revenue spending, I don't know if that distinction is important or not, but perhaps it is.

When I look at the legislation, my question is what we can do with the legislation to provide incentives to address the take-up question. That means that you build in penalties.

Right now, actually, if the government were a business, you would make money by not paying benefits. Particularly, you make money by not paying benefits when you don't pay interest on retroactive benefits. In fact, when somebody shows up at age 90 to claim their CPP, you've given their money away to somebody else, especially when you don't.... You pay 11 months, and even when you acknowledge that you've made an administrative error, you don't pay interest, so you make money.

If it was a business, you'd say, well, we don't want those types of incentives; we would actually have an incentive that would say we had better make sure everybody is signed up or we're going to pay down the road. The part of the legislation that would exempt the state from pursuing retroactive benefits reduces the burden. It actually makes it easier to have a take-up problem. So I would say no.

On the provision with interest, I said I'd rather have the Financial Administration Act, not because I want to be pursuing interest when there's an overpayment, but because I want to have an incentive in place to address the take-up problem. As long as they're not paying interest when they make retroactive benefits, you're actually putting in place an incentive to not address the take-up problem. If you really wanted to take that to heart, you'd say that when there has been a retroactive benefit, you will pay this plus you will pay a penalty--if you really wanted to create an incentive for the system to sign people up.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Michael Savage]

Mr. Shillington, that's time. Thank you very much.

We'll move to the Bloc.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to clarify one thing about the disclosure of seniors’ information. In the early 1980s, the Privacy Commissioner at the time, Mr. George Radwanski, came to testify before this committee. He said that section 241 of the Income Tax Act specifically authorized Department of Human Resources Development officials to disclose taxpayer information for the purposes of administering the Old Age Security Act.

He also spoke of section 33 of the Act. According to him, there was a reciprocal provision based on the fact that the Guaranteed Income Supplement was simply a component of Old Age Security. Furthermore, he said that the Canadian government had known that since 1993 and that it also knew that many people were excluded. They knew exactly how many people were excluded, which meant they also knew who was excluded.

In 2002, when we started working on this issue with Mr. Gagnon, we knew there were 68,000 people in this position in Quebec, because of cross-referencing of data. This brings us back to what Mr. Shillington said earlier. Did officials voluntarily avoid processing this information and consequently giving these people the money owed to them? In my opinion, the question is a serious one, although I’m not accusing anyone. It’s a matter of fact. I want this to be clear, even for my colleagues who are present here. I have all the information about this.

Mr. Bajwa, you have on several occasions raised the matter of residency and the reciprocity agreements with various countries, including India. If I remember correctly, government officials said no such agreement exists at this time, making it difficult to implement what you are proposing with regard to the processing of Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and Canada Pension Plan benefits.

Were you aware of this? Has your organization lobbied the Department of Foreign Affairs for such agreements?

[Balkar Bajwa]

I'd like to say the simple thing, and my point is very straight. You know that GIS is a guaranteed income supplement--guaranteed. If it is a guaranteed one, a citizen of Canada should not be deprived of his guaranteed income supplement. Is it a reasonable justice to a man who is a citizen of Canada but is not getting any guaranteed income supplement? Why do you put a five-year attachment on old age security benefits, or a ten-year one? What is the logic?

Be human. Take the condition off the 65-plus citizens who are Canadian citizens. They have forgone their Indian, Arab, African, or Chinese citizenship and they are now honourable, proud Canadian citizens. Why is their guaranteed income supplement zero because they have not completed ten years of residency? This is unjust and unfair.

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

Mr. Bajwa, I want to be clear about this. The word “guaranteed” does not mean automatic.

[Balkar Bajwa]

Yes.

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

The income supplement can only be said to be guaranteed when people meet the following two conditions: they are receiving Old Age Security benefits and their income is low enough for them to be eligible.

Is that what the issue is?

[Balkar Bajwa]

It is my contention that old age security income still is old age income security. If you are attaching residency, then where is the income security? It is the residency that is secure, not the income. My point here is that if one becomes a Canadian citizen, then no such condition should apply if other Canadians, after one year, start getting it even if they are not citizens of Canada.