Debates of May 8th, 1995

Old Age Security Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the division on the motion now before the House stands deferred. The vote will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-54, in Clause 3, be amended by striking out line 21, on page 2, and substituting the following:

"on the first day of the fourth month after the month in which this Act is assented to."

Madam Speaker, I move this motion for reasons of fairness and efficiency, which is the proper combination we have attempted to apply throughout Bill C-54.

When the bill was first introduced in the fall of 1994 it contained provisions that made reference to April 1, 1995 as the date that notification for the application would be made for those to have the retroactivity provision reduced from five years to one year.

April 1 has come and gone. Therefore in the cause of fairness, the amendment that we moved which I will read for the enlightenment of members is that we would replace April 1, 1995 with the comment or the phrase "on the first day of the fourth month after the month in which this act is assented to". It

is a somewhat complicated legal way of saying that people will have three months beyond the passage of this bill in which they would be informed of the new provisions so that they would be able to make their plans and their applications.

The old age security system has had a somewhat unusual or eccentric provision which gave people five years in which to make application for their OAS. It meant that those who were able to receive advice from various experts could delay making application for tax purposes for an extended period of time. This provision brings the bill into line with other provisions of the Canada pension plan and other acts. There would be the standard one-year provision in which people could make application for their OAS. We would give them three months to make that application through the proper information circles.

We are attempting to ensure that the five-year retroactivity period is reduced to one year so there is no loophole that allows people to get a tax advantage. At the same time it ensures a proper period of information for those who want to have at least one year beyond 65 years to make application for their benefits. Therefore I recommend this motion to the House.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister of Human Resources Development expects that, inspired by what he said earlier, we will want to maintain April 1 as the implementation date of the act. We will support this amendment. Considering the delays which occurred, as usual, our position being a reasonable one we will support this amendment.

However, I would like to take the time at my disposal to reply to the hon. member of the Reform Party who criticized earlier our proposal to maintain the two appeal or revision tribunals, that is one for the old age pension plan and the other one for the Canada pension plan. As hon. members know, these two plans are very different. They are not financed with the same funds since the Canada pension plan is paid for by workers who contribute to its fund while the old age pension is financed by all taxpayers.

As we know, the government's intention is perhaps to merge the two plans in some way as announced in the budget speech. We believe however that having only one board is far from being the best solution. I believe this has nothing to do with the costs linked to the board as my hon. colleague said earlier. The fact is those two boards will have to deal with cases that are very different.

Some witnesses before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development explained to us how difficult it was for handicapped persons to be heard by the board. Unfortunately, the model that was chosen and the merger will not be based basically on the old age pension appeal board but on that of the Canada pension plan.

We believe that their merging is not a good idea. We do not think it will lead to savings. Quite the contrary, we think that in the interests of seniors who will have to deal with a board that handicapped persons were not satisfied with, and in the interests of the handicapped who have a right to a better process than what is currently available to them, it would be better to maintain two boards and to improve the existing Canada pension plan appeals board.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 2 is a motion to move the start up time of the amendments in the bill. The big concern we have is that the vote on Motion No. 2 will come before the vote on most of the proposed amendments to the bill.

The position members of the House might take on this bill as to whether it should come into effect at all surely would depend on all the motions being voted on and then the House making a judgment as to whether the bill should be put into effect. In Motion No. 2 we are being asked to put the bill into effect without knowing what might be in the bill, because there are several other amendments that will then be voted on.

On that basis I suggest the method of dealing with the bill is not very logical and that the motion is not appropriately placed. I suggest the minister consider moving the motion to a more appropriate place in the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 will be grouped for debate. The vote on motion No. 4 will apply to motions Nos. 13 and 15.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-54, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 9, on page 12, with the following:

"sion or Statistics Canada,".

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-54, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 26, with the following:

"tions or Statistics Canada, or to".

Motion No. 15

That Bill C- 54, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 38, on page 29, with the following:

"ment of Supply and Services or the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission;".

Madam Speaker, clause 20 is entitled "Access to privileged information" and reads as follows:

Except as provided in this section, all information with respect to any applicant or beneficiary or the spouse of any applicant or beneficiary, obtained in the course of the administration of this Act, is privileged and no person shall knowingly, except as provided in this Act, make available or allow to be made available any such information to any person not legally entitled to it.

The next paragraph allows the Departments of National Revenue, Finance, Supply and Services, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, Statistics Canada or Canada Post access to the information.

We do not agree with Canada Post having access to the information. We were not told, we were not explained adequately why privileged information could be available to Canada Post, especially since Canada Post, through several of its components, is now broken up, and we know the government tendency in that respect. So, in this amendment and the others, we oppose having privileged information available to Canada Post.

I must say that we hesitated and that it is with reluctance that we accept privileged information being available to the agencies or departments that we have mentioned.

We are living in an age where the danger of disclosure of private information is ever increasing due to the interconnection of government data bases and its potential consequences. In these days and ages we are running the risk of coming under the watchful eye of Big Brother, as described by a famous novelist.

Because of some arguments that were made, we concurred with the proposition, although reluctantly, and I wanted to make that quite clear. Again, a very large part of this legislation will be managed by phone. A very large portion of the information will be transmitted by computer. In this age of technology, there is always the risk that the information will fall into the hands of people who could put it to bad use.

Consequently, we are firmly opposed to giving Canada Post access to privileged information, considering the changes made.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, this motion is the first of a set of three amendments that would remove the minister's ability to disclose limited client information to Canada Post.

I am truly surprised that members opposite have brought this amendment at report stage. It reveals a lack of understanding of the purpose of this provision of Bill C-54 and perhaps-and I underline "perhaps"-an unwillingness to prepare for the future.

The government realizes the importance of using new technologies to provide better service to Canadians. This is especially important with regard to our income security programs for seniors. The provision of Bill C-54 that the opposition seeks to delete would enable the minister, under very restrictive conditions, to release limited information about clients to Canada Post where it is necessary for the administration of old age security, the Canada pension plan, or the Children's Allowance Act, as the case may be.

It is widely recognized that there are certain advantages to having a specialist work for us. One could hardly doubt that Canada Post is a specialist in the field of getting letters out to Canadians. This is exactly the reason for this provision.

Bill C-54 would allow the department to transmit the text of letters electronically to a Canada Post processing centre, where computers would print them and machines would place the letters in envelopes. Clients would receive information about their old age security or Canada pension benefits more quickly. The department would save money. Most people in my riding would think this is a very good idea.

Moreover, the confidentiality of the information clients provide to the government is protected in several ways. Canada Post employees are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the mail they deliver, whether they receive the mail in a red mailbox, on a street corner, or electronically by computer. Bill C-54 could never change that.

The Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, and the Children's Special Allowances Act provide that it is an offence punishable on summary conviction to disclose client information to anyone not entitled to have that information. Bill C-54 even strengthens this protection by extending it from just employees of Her Majesty to any person who may have access to client information. This portion of Bill C-54 allows the government to provide service to clients more effectively and at a lower cost.

In spite of opposition attempts to raise the spectre of personal information being sold to those who have no rights to it, Bill C-54 actually strengthens the government's ability to protect clients' information. It is actually the opposition motion that could and would jeopardize the client confidentiality.

Canada Post is bound by law to protect that confidentiality. The opposition would have us open this up to other suppliers with the legal safeguards. Senior citizens, who would benefit greatly from the changes proposed by this bill, have a right to the facts, the correct facts. This bill would allow the government to send mail electronically through Canada Post in much the same way it currently puts letters in mailboxes.

The government is committed to finding efficiency where it can and to using new technology where possible to save money. This bill does not provide unrestricted access to information to Canada Post employees or to anyone else. However, this bill does provide adequate and even stringent penalties for illegal disclosure of information.

Bill C-54 provides sound, appropriate, and highly desirable changes to the acts governing our income security programs. We have all discussed in detail the concerns raised by the opposition, which in some way was reflected in Motion No. 4. Motions 13 and 15 seek to do the same thing to the Canada pension plan and to the Children's Special Allowances Act.

For this and many other reasons I suggest these motions be withdrawn and that all members support the speedy passage of Bill C-54.