Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-54 is particularly significant because it substantially changes some aspects of four pieces of legislation that are ultimately central to income support for the most disadvantaged in our society.
As the Official Opposition, we had an opportunity to say that we see in this bill a number of positive points but we still have three concerns which I will be happy to discuss with you.
Before being interrupted in a friendly way by our Speaker, I had explained to the hon. members that we were happy with two positive aspects of the bill and I was about to discuss the third point, which will give OAS and spouse's allowance recipients an avenue of administrative recourse without them having to appeal to another court. We agree with this effort to simplify administration. We are also pleased that this bill allows recipients to settle overpayments quickly and to avoid more red tape.
We have three main concerns with this bill. Our first concern lies at the centre of democratic life and concerns access to personal information that would be extended to other departments. This concern-that the bill before us allows other departments and agencies to access information on recipients-is the subject of an amendment to the bill.
It must be understood-and I think it is important for our viewers to understand it as well-that this bill adds to the list of departments and agencies that will have access to the information given by program beneficiaries. This list will grow so much that even Canada Post will have access to this information, although it has not been explained to us why Canada Post would need this type of information. We think there has been an oversight, a lack of accuracy which, in the long term, could lead to abuse.
The list of departments and agencies which will be able to access this information is also expanded. The result is that the Correctional Service of Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General and any other person designated as a health care professional will have access to that information.
No justification has been made for expanding that list. Yet, such a measure could lead to abuse and to violations of the principles of democracy.
I draw your attention to the fact that the Correctional Service will even be allowed to prosecute inmates who are pensioners to ensure that these people continue to pay off debts incurred in the past. We would have liked the act to provide more details where it authorizes any person designated by the minister as a health care professional to have access to information by name.
Why not be more specific? Why not say exactly what we are talking about? Why be so vague? You will agree with me that past experience has demonstrated the importance, for the legislator, to specify who, and in what specific circumstances, can have access to such information. I see the Minister of Revenue nodding his head. Heaven knows how important access to important information by name is for his department.
We would have liked this bill to provide some bench marks, to be more specific regarding the managers and the officials who will have access to such information by name, as it concerns the private lives of individuals. In fact, we know from past experience that failure to do so by the legislator results in abuse which, in turn, leads to representations before administrative tribunals or courts of law.
This is the reason for the amendment tabled by the hon. member, and I hope that this House will adopt it. In fact, I will read that amendment again, so that viewers can understand what the Bloc Quebecois is trying to do.
Our position is that we agree with the essence of this bill. We agree that it provides for a substantial reduction in administrative procedures. However, considering some of the concerns we have about the bill, we ask that:
"this House declines to give second reading reading to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it does not provide a penalty under the Criminal Code for the disclosure of personal information concerning beneficiaries to persons who are not legally authorized to such information pursuant to Access to Privileged Information."
There is quite a contradiction here. We have legislation that is intended to protect the privacy of Canadians, and we have legislation before the House today that fails to provide any mechanisms for laying charges or imposing formal sanctions, in the case of public employees who might be guilty of unauthorized disclosure of information.
You do not have to be a member of the Canadian public service to know that this has been known to occur in the past. Why did the minister not propose mechanisms to prevent such practices?
So this is a serious concern. Madam Speaker, this is a fundamental error which should be corrected, and that is what we are doing, as part of the responsibilities and duties we have as an Official Opposition that takes those duties very seriously.
Our second cause for concern is that clearly, Bill C-54, in addition to streamlining certain administrative procedures, reflects an austerity policy the government claims to support, an approach reflected in somewhat haphazard cuts of up to $7 billion over the next few years, cuts which, as they were in the past, will be at the expense of the less well-off in our society.
Our listeners and members of this House should recall that in the past, those who failed to apply for old age security benefits within the prescribed period could do so retroactively for up to a maximum of five years, which gave people considerable leeway.
Today, the government wants to reduce this period to one year. Aside from the somewhat shortsighted, financial considerations that might deprive Canadians of the basic right to get their pension benefits retroactively over a period of more than one year, there is no indication of what this is supposed to accomplish, since it is not a measure that will benefit Canadians.
The government is getting ready to put an end to the five-year retroactivity provision which is in force until this bill is passed. In an effort to balance its budget, the government wants to reduce, arbitrarily and without giving any explanation, retroactive payments to pensioners. It is estimated that up to 1,200,000 people availed themselves of this right to recover retroactively their Old Age Security pensions.
This is an important issue. There are many reasons why people may have to apply retroactively for old age pensions. Instead of getting five years of retroactive benefits they will only get one, and we believe that it is unfair. We are totally against it.
There is another administrative measure aimed at balancing the budget we disagree with because we believe that it is not in the best interests of our fellow citizens. Let us keep in mind that
when we are talking about Old Age Security, we are not talking about wealthy people.
We are talking for the most part about people who are not financially independent. We are talking about people who are depend largely on transfers from the government, namely Old Age Security.
Therefore, the other point about which the opposition is in disagreement with the government is the elimination of the deadline for the recovery of overpayments. We have to realize that, when you are dealing with social legislation, any kind of legislation under which civil servants, managers, must review applications, interpret the act and justify their decisions, human nature being what it is, it might happen that, even with the best of intentions-and we do not doubt the good intentions of civil servants in Quebec, in Ottawa or elsewhere-overpayments are made. It means that people are given rights they were not entitled to, in the strict sense of the law.
From now on, the government will be able to ask that money paid in excess be reimbursed and there will be no time limit for this; to use a legal expression, there will be no statute of limitations. In the past, when overpayments were made to recipients, we could not ask for the amounts owing to be remitted after two years had gone by. Today, the government is assuming the right-a right basically unprecedented in social law-to recover overpayments at any point in time.
This means that, under this legislation, if someone incurred a debt 15 years ago and an erroneous decision was made concerning this person, we could recover this money. I can see my hon. colleague nodding. I guess she agrees with me. It is always a pleasure to receive support from the opposition, a support as unusual as it is unsubstantial. No limit will be put on establishing overpayments. This is a practice that hardly seems to be in the interest of our fellow citizens.
We have concerns about another thing. We realize that this bill provides for an appeal procedure enabling our fellow citizens who receive old age security and a pension under the Canada Pension Plan to appeal, to go before an administrative tribunal and challenge decisions that were made and that they disagree with. Such review tribunals are commonplace, of course, in administrative and social law.
There are review tribunals for the CSST, for income security, for the motor vehicle insurance bureau, and that is how it should be. We are not concerned so much about-seeing that I have but one minute remaining, I will make this my conclusion, as I was about to close- the existence of appeal mechanisms, as about the minister having the power to discontinue the payments of benefits when no decision has been made under the appeal procedure.
Therefore, while recognizing that some administrative adjustments may be in order, we cannot support this bill without the amendment put forth by the Official Opposition, which would have the effect of really limiting the actions and powers of those who will be handling personal information data banks. So, we have every confidence that the government will approve the opposition's proposal. I thank you for the speaking time I was given.
