I already mentioned the provision that would exempt the state from pursuing retroactive benefits, only because it would reduce the administrative burden of dealing with take-up issues. That is another provision that would go away if there were no take-up problem.
There's a flip side to this interest issue, and I want to talk about a woman. I'll use her name because it's been in the press. Her name is Marie Baxter, and she came to my attention when she contacted me. She had missed out on 15 years of Canada Pension Plan benefits. The department lost her application form. She applied for her retirement benefits and survivor benefits at the same time because her husband died just when she was turning 65.
When you get the cheque, there's no way of telling what it's for. You know it's CPP but it doesn't tell you how much is for what, so she didn't know. So 15 years later she discovered that she had been getting the wrong amount. Eventually, after my intervention and with the help of The Globe and Mail, she got her full retroactive cheque. She had made not one error whatsoever.
The legislation for CPP says that when you make a retroactive payment because of administrative error, the payment should put the person in the place they would have been in if the error had not been made.
Is there a lawyer in the room? Does that imply interest?