Human Resources Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

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

I understand that there are people who...

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

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

Silence is assent, Mr. Chair. I had the impression we had unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No one agreed to unanimous consent.

I'll do it one more time. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No? Okay.

We'll have that withdrawn.

We're going to move to clause 16. We have BQ-6 from Mr. Lessard. Would you read that in, sir, and then maybe talk to that amendment?

(On clause 16)

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

Mr. Chair, you've no doubt seen it, because I know you are a very studious person and that you examined in advance the amendments that were sent to you; the weight of words is important. That's especially true in legislation.

For example, in subclause 16(1) of the bill, proposed subsection 11(4) reads as follows:

(4) The Minister may waive the requirement referred to in subsection 2 for an application for payment of a supplement for any month or months in a payment period if an application for payment of a supplement has been made in respect of any payment period before that payment.

These words often reappear. That's why I read this paragraph in full.

Our amendment consists in changing the word “may” to the word “shall”. The subsection would therefore read as follows:

(4) The Minister shall waive the requirement [...]

The purpose of that is to avoid repetition and to enable people to make changes to their applications only where there have been changes to their pensioner status.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Lake.

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

Once again, I'm going to bow to the department officials to maybe explain the implication of this.

[Marla Israel]

I think, generally speaking, words are important—I would definitely agree with you—and the obligation of the “shall” provides an obligation on the part of the minister to disregard circumstances that could arise where it would be warranted, for example, to provide an individual with an application form.

Now, I have to say that from a departmental perspective, as I said, the automatic renewal of GIS, the measures that are taken in Bill C-36, will I think go a long way to ensure that seniors will not be placed in a position where they have to apply through a paper application.

But let me give you a circumstance where the flexibility in the “may” may be warranted. For example, we rely on income information that is provided to us from the Canada Revenue Agency. If an individual has, for example, applied for the benefit in the past and could be in a situation where certain life events have changed—let's say their income information has changed—we're relying on the information that is provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. If that individual claims that the Canada Revenue Agency has not assessed their income appropriately, then what happens is we'd be obliged to accept the CRA income and potentially not have a senior be eligible for a GIS benefit because their income, as assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency, would be too high.

So you proactively go out and you initiate an application form for the individual. They provide us with the income. Ultimately, if the reassessment of CRA deems them to have income that's too high, there will have to be a reassessment of that situation. But I think the flexibility is something you want to ensure, with the proviso that you take every effort that is necessary to avoid an application process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you.

Does that clear it up, Mr. Lake?

Are there any other comments?

Yes, Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify a point so that we clearly understand one another.

In a situation such as that described by Ms. Israel, the minister, through his officials, may intervene and say that a person's status has changed, that he has observed it. In that case, it is in his interest because it is the provision we previously addressed in clause 4 that enables you to intervene when you realize that someone is receiving a larger benefit than the one to which he is entitled. So at that point it's clause 4 that applies for you, not this one.

[Marla Israel]

I'm not sure I absolutely understand that. Can you please repeat it? I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, did you want to...?

[Marla Israel]

It's not an overpayment situation. Clause 4 is an overpayment situation.

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

That's simply so we understand each other. I don't want to get you in trouble.

[Marla Israel]

Yes.

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

You're describing a situation where you see, for example, that someone has an income that isn't consistent with the benefit he's receiving. So you can intervene at any time and tell him that's not appropriate.

This isn't the same thing here. The minister is being relieved of the obligation to request it each time, to repeat requests. So when you see that an individual has income that is not consistent with his benefit, you intervene under clause 4 and you tell him that he is receiving too much or not enough. You're not required to wait six or eight years in order to tell him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Are there no other comments?

If there are no other comments, then, on amendment BQ-6—

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

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

A recorded vote? Is that what he's saying? I had a feeling.

We're going to have a recorded vote, then.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We are going to move to amendment BQ-7, which is right in line with what you have, but if you're looking at your sheets, it's out of order by one amendment.

Mr. Lessard, if you'd like to, read the motion for amendment BQ-7 and make just a quick comment on it.

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

One moment, please, Mr. Chair. You say it's on page 8?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's page 8 in the package.

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

I thought that was on page 8 of the act, Mr. Chair. It was my mistake. It's on page 8 of the amendments. We understand each other.