Human Resources Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

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

Before our friends start consulting, I invite them to reread the text here. It doesn't have the scope that you give it, particularly since the reference that you gave Ms. Dhalla concerning the six years does not apply here, since that only appears in the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

[Marla Israel]

Before we start our caucus, I will take a look, but I guess just to re-emphasize.... Let's take our caucus on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Lake, do you have a final comment?

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

I'm curious, actually. In the case of an overpayment to somebody and they owe money back to the government, they don't pay interest, typically, if it's an administrative error, or whatever the case may be. How is that money paid back? Let's say it's not discovered for 10 or 15 years. It might be a big amount of money. How do they...?

[Nancy Lawand]

There is a policy, a set of procedures, followed whereby the individual is informed of the amount of the overpayment, and there's a collections schedule that is negotiated with the individual.

I should say there's a very generous remissions policy that's been in place for a long time as well. If the individual demonstrates that they really have low resources, low income, there is an authority that is delegated to senior managers to consider the remission of overpayments in the case of low income. So there is a lot of flexibility in terms of how those moneys are recovered. Each individual can negotiate a repayment schedule based on their means.

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

Okay. Just to clarify, there's no penalty involved. We're not talking about penalties. We're talking about people who just received money they should never have received, whether it be for the first six years or whether it be for 10 or 15 years. It's money they should never have received in the first place.

[Nancy Lawand]

That's right.

Just to add to your point, the fact is the debt could be recoverable from longer ago than six years. That's why I think we need to be a bit precise in terms of answering what the implication of Monsieur Lessard's amendment might be. So if we could take a couple of minutes.... Is that okay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have one more comment from Ms. Dhalla. Then, if you would like, take a couple of seconds.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

In your deliberations, I think it would also be helpful for the committee to know, when you talk about the repayment schedule—even though Mr. Lessard's amendment is not with respect to that, but about the collection—what the time range is for seniors who have to repay the government.

[Ross MacLeod, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations Branch, Service Canada]

I'm Ross MacLeod from Service Canada. We actually provide the payments to the seniors.

They can go on quite long. It varies with each case. We establish a debt to the Crown and then we send out statements. They can negotiate a payment schedule with us. In the case where it's a very small repayment, sometimes it's not worth the cost of recovery, so it will ultimately be written off. But they can go quite long, depending on the means.

If you consider a senior who has a very low income, we don't want to collect too much money at once, obviously, so it can string on for a long time. It depends on the individual case, and there are cases that would go for more than six years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Did you need some time, or do you want to make a comment?

[Marla Israel]

I just want to comment on that, because I have the section. It was referencing the Auditor General's report concerning the overpayment policy:

[It] sets guidelines for the collection process to ensure that beneficiaries repaying overpayments are treated consistently and equitably:

Normally, recovery of the full amount is attempted first. The overpayment is to be recovered within 5 years or, if the overpayment is greater than $10,000, within 10 years. Recovery is to begin promptly through monthly deductions from benefits, after informing the beneficiary of the overpayment....

If the beneficiary would suffer undue financial hardship from application of [this] provision, the recovery period may be extended beyond...10 years, but a minimum payment of $10 per month must be established and the account must be reviewed [periodically].

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chair, that's not at all what this is about here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I realize you're not talking about the repayment process. Ms. Dhalla was just throwing out a hypothetical situation for us to consider.

Did anyone need any further clarification?

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

They are taking a break to caucus right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I don't want anyone leaving their chairs. We have about 26 more clauses to go through here.

We'll give them a few seconds to comment. We're going to suspend—but don't leave your chairs, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We will reconvene now.

I know that Mr. Lessard has a quick comment. Ms. Israel will also give her thoughts.

Mr. Lessard.

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

I think I unwillingly misled our friends by starting with the second Bloc québécois amendment, BQ-2. If the order had been followed, the measure would have been better understood. I started with the amendment to line 41, but of course I should have dealt with line 36 first.

I therefore move that Bill C-36, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 2 with the following:

recoverable within six years in the Federal Court or

As I said earlier, this means that retroactivity cannot go beyond six years. When we address the other amendment, things will be consistent, and it will be clearer for our friends. Once we've reached that point, it will no longer be a technical question, but rather a political choice. The point is to see whether or not we agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Ms. Israel.

[Marla Israel]

My first comment is that of course you'd have to examine the financial impact of doing that. In other words, you'd only decide that if there's a debt that's owed, you would go back retroactively to six years and no more. And right now there could be cases of deliberate fraud on the part of an individual that would result in an overpayment.

The person, for example, might have knowingly committed that act of fraud. I can give you an example. GIS, for example, is not payable outside of the country for a period of longer than six months. Well, if a person has been living outside the country for more than that and has been collecting guaranteed income supplement payments for a long period of time, is it fair to say that there's not an onus of responsibility to try to recover that overpayment?

While I can appreciate the circumstances that perhaps would lead to going back no more than six years, I think there's a financial impact that would have to be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chair, this is really a political debate, and I'll tell you why.

Persons who, for 12 years, have involuntarily benefited from an amount of money that did not belong to them will be penalized for all that time because we suspect that some in that group might commit fraud? Mr. Chair, this is simply a political choice. Let's weigh that choice in the balance and consider the fact that the government currently holds $3.2 billion that belongs to seniors who are entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

With all due respect to our friends, who want to enlighten us, I would point out that this is definitely a political issue. Government finances will not be jeopardized as a result. This measure will protect people who involuntarily, without wishing it, find themselves in possession of money that does not belong to them. These are people whose incomes do not permit them to repay those amounts and for whom repayment spread over more than six years would mean misery.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully assert that this argument cannot be considered in the context of the decision we must make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what we have to remember here is that the proposed legislation, with respect to this part of the bill, is here because of inconsistent French and English versions of the current legislation, the current law. In other words, what the government is proposing to do here is to put some consistent wording into the existing statutes on the books, and nothing more.

What you are proposing is to make a substantive change to the current statute on the books. In other words, the current statute on the books allows the government to recover debts without any time restrictions. However, there's inconsistent wording between the English and French language versions of those statutes, so what we are attempting to do here in this portion of the proposed legislation is to make the wording consistent. What you are proposing to do is to change the length of time that the government can recover those debts to a period of six years. That has financial implications because that means that certain debts will not be recoverable, and those have not been costed out and have not been assessed by the departments or the government.