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?