Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

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

This is not a point of order, Madam Chair. It has to do with Mr. Martin's motion that we have before us. I am of the same view as Mr. Savage. I believe it would be better to postpone this discussion. When we asked the House of Commons to refer Bill C-304 to the committee, we had agreed to draft an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Martin did not move his motion, so we are not dealing with Mr. Martin's motion at this time.

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

You had talked about Mr. Martin's motion, that is why. I am sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry. No, he decided not to. He is not moving it right now, so we are dealing with Mr. Savage's motion.

We have about 10 minutes. Please go ahead.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair. I'll read the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, go ahead.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The motion is that:

The Committee requests that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development appear before the Committee for two hours as soon as possible to discuss the Conservative government's new policy of eliminating a senior citizens' ability to exempt Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIF) from the calculation of GIS eligibility through the use of the “option provision” as otherwise allowed in the Old Age Security Act and the consequences this will have on seniors who receive Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) payments.

This comes about from information that was disclosed, or became more public, a couple of weeks ago that seniors would be very significantly burdened by having their GIS eligibility and the amount of money they would collect from GIS affected by taking money out of their RRIF. I can recall seniors who are very severely poor by any standard, and to further impoverish them by affecting their GIS through this I think is particularly punitive.

The minister indicated in the House that she was going to have a review of this. But what we need to do is find out how this came about in the first place. Apparently it's a change that's been made very quietly and it affects an awful lot of people, among them the poorest seniors in the country. So I think it's worth having some discussion on this and bringing the minister forward to talk about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

There's no doubt that there had been an administrative change made. The minister was quite clear in her responses. I think others answered questions in the House that this change was reviewed and the decision was made to revert back to the situation as it was in May of 2010, I believe. To the extent that there were any concerns, it certainly wasn't something that at the cabinet or ministerial level was approved as a policy going forward. It's obvious that the decision, to the extent it was made, has been reversed. So why we would want to interject that issue now, in the middle of a study that we're doing for the next number of meetings in relation to adoption, is something I wouldn't approve of.

It seems to me the issue has been dealt with. It was one that was raised, I think by a member of Mr. Savage's party. When you raise an issue you expect the minister or the government to have a look at it and take some action with respect to that. I would think that by raising the issue and then the minister reacting in such a quick fashion to address that concern...it is not something that should be the subject of further discussion and review before this committee, at least at this time.

If there were other developments, and perhaps when we return in the new year—I know there would appear to be no apparent emerging need to discuss this issue at this time. So for that reason, I don't think much is to be gained, except perhaps if the motives are otherwise. But it would be my view that this motion and the request in it would not be appropriate at this time, especially given the clear, unequivocal comments made in the House by those who have something to do with this. Quite frankly, as I recall it, the question in the House was not only to review it but to take some action, with the understanding that it would be to reverse the situation back to where it was. That's indeed what happened, in a relatively short period of time. It's unequivocal. It's clear. So to try to go through that process I think would be inappropriate at this time, and that's my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard, and then Mr. Savage.

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

In order for us to make up our mind, Madam Chair... I will wait for Mr. Komarnicki to pay attention because I have a question for him.

In order to make up our mind, Madam Chair, we would like the answers to two questions. One will be for Mr. Komarnicki and one for Mr. Savage.

Mr. Komarnicki, are you announcing this morning that the minister has definitely decided not to implement this measure? If your answer is yes, I will now direct my other question to Mr. Savage. Is this motion still necessary since we are being told this morning that this measure has been definitively withdrawn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Savage, would you allow Mr. Komarnicki to answer? You are next on the speaking list, so you can have—

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Because one of the questions was from me, I'll go next, and then he can go, in case we run out of time. But I look forward to his answer.

Yes, there's very much a need. The question is, what happened here, and is this going to happen again? How do decisions like this get made that affect the poorest of the poor in our country? If this was a decision that wasn't made at the cabinet level or the ministerial level, that makes it even more important to find out how this happened and carried on for a long period of time.

It's to the good credit of Gerry Byrne, who raised this in the House and brought this issue to light. He has rightly deserved and received some credit for what he's done.

But the question is, how does this happen? Is it happening with EI? Is it happening with the disability tax credit? Who's making these decisions? How does a decision like this get made? It's fine to say thank you to the Liberal Party for raising it and we'll fix it in this case, but what happened here? We need to find out what happened in this case and how a decision can happen that is so detrimental to people who have very little voice.

How do we know it's not going to happen with other measures, in other parts of this huge department? This is one of the biggest departments of government, making decisions on education and many other issues that affect the lives of Canadians who are disabled, seniors, living in poverty. The question is, what happened here? Why did it happen?

I think it's incumbent upon this committee, and, frankly, I think it's part of the fiduciary responsibility of this committee, to find out what happened in a case this serious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki, did you want to answer the question?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Sure. I think there is no question that unequivocally the policy has been cancelled. It is not going forward. To answer Mr. Lessard's question directly, that's the fact; that's the answer.

It makes this question another matter. I think if Mr. Savage wishes to put a question, with an answer from the minister, he's certainly entitled to do that through a question on the order paper. He can proceed that way, if he wishes.

The fact of the matter is we're obviously all concerned about the effect that may have had on seniors. We're concerned about our seniors in this country. They have played a vital role, and they continue to play a vital role.

We know that during this particular time in the economy, with the recession we've had and so on, it is particularly sensitive, and we have been particularly sensitive, and we have taken a number of measures--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki, I'm going to have to stop you, but when we return you will be able to continue speaking. We are at the end of our time and we have another committee waiting to come in. We'll deal with this on Thursday.

As well, we have a motion from Mr. Lessard we're going to be dealing with, and we'll possibly have Mr. Martin's. We'll finish with this one and we'll deal with our other motions as well as the long-form census.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.