HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

Á

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance))

Ms. Nada Semaan (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs, Department of Human Resources Development)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier (Director General of Low-Income Pensioners, Income Security Programs, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Á

1120

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Larry Spencer

Á

1125

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. David Price

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Á

1130

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

Á

1135

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Á

1140

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Nada Semaan

Á

1145

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Nada Semaan

Á

1150

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

Á

1155

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

Â

1200

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

Â

1205

Ms. Libby Davies

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Â

1210

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Â

1215

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Nada Semaan

Â

1220

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Nada Semaan

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Libby Davies

Â

1225

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

Â

1230

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Charlotte Cloutier

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

Ms. Nada Semaan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 007

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    With us today is Nada Semaan, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs, and Charlotte Cloutier, Director General of Low-Income Pensioners, Income Security Programs.

    Ms. Semaan, I believe you wanted to begin.

    Ms. Nada Semaan (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    While I am pleased to be here today, unfortunately, the seat I am currently occupying would normally be filled by our Assistant Deputy Minister, Paul Migus. A medical condition is keeping Paul from being here today. I am happy to state, though, that he will shortly be with us, as he is feeling better. He is very pleased that we are here to talk about the progress of our department in communicating about the GIS to Canadians.

    As you know, the old age security pension and the Canada Pension Plan are not new programs. As a matter of fact, the year 2002 does mark the 75th anniversary of the public pension system. The old age security program, which includes the guaranteed income supplement, provides the first level of Canada's three-tiered income support system and is the largest federal government expenditure. It ensures that Canadians have a basic income in retirement. Almost 3.9 million Canadians are in receipt of an old age security pension. That represents about 98% of seniors. The GIS has been in existence since 1967, and almost 1.4 million of low-income seniors are in receipt of a guaranteed income supplement. The Canada Pension Plan is the second level of the system. The CPP, as well as its sister program, the QPP, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan. It also provides financial assistance to contributors or their families in the event of disability or death. The third level is the private component of the system. It includes tax-assisted, fully funded employer-sponsored pension plans, RRSPs, and other private savings.

[Translation]

    Before I get into GIS initiatives developed in the past year, I want to remind you of a number of the ways we have been communicating with Canadians about the GIS.

    For instance, information inserts are distributed to 4.7 million Canadians with the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security T4 income statements. Over 250,000 communications items, such as brochures and fact sheets, on the GIS are broadly distributed across Canada through more than 320 Human Resource Centres of Canada. HRDC outreach officers distribute them at seniors’ events.

    In addition, we have been continually improving the process by making it easier for people to find out about the program.

    For example, in 1989 we added a question to the Old Age Security application form that asks, “If your Old Age Security pension is approved, do you want to apply for the Guaranteed Income Supplement?” If the applicant answers “yes”, we send them an application.

    Since 1996 our department has sent some 200,000 OAS and CPP application kits each year to individuals in advance of their 65^th birthday.

    Since 1999, we have enabled our clients to renew their GIS benefit and maintain their entitlement without having to complete a full application every year.

[English]

    In August 2001 GIS became the focus of a great deal of media attention. The primary issue was the number of people eligible, but not receiving the guaranteed income supplement. Various media stories suggested that the number was close to 400,000. Let me put this situation of under-subscription into some context. The plain fact is that we really can't say the exact number of potential recipients. One reason is that not all seniors choose to file an income tax return. Other reasons include the difficulty in obtaining information on residency or marital status. We believe now the number is nowhere near the 380,000-plus that has been reported in various media accounts. But no matter what the number, we will keep trying to make it smaller.

    In December of last year this committee made a number of recommendations on reaching Canadians about the GIS. Before I report on the progress so far, I would like to thank you very much for your attention to this very important matter.

    The committee recommended that HRDC take immediate steps to simplify the initial application form, and further asked HRDC and CCRA to continue to work together and identify and contact seniors who may be eligible for GIS directly. In February and March of this year HRDC sent personalized and simplified applications to people across Canada who are 65 years or over and who could potentially receive GIS benefits. To respond to the February and March mailing, all a person had to do was verify the information on the application, sign their name, and return the application to us. Of the 105,000 personalized applications we sent 75,000 were returned, and of that group most met the eligibility requirement and are now in pay with the GIS.

    I mentioned that we received back about 75,000 of the 105,000 simplified applications we sent. I can tell you we did not leave it at that. We did a random sample of those who did not respond to determine if there was anything else we could do. What we did learn was that the majority of those who did not respond did so because they did not want to receive the GIS. In addition to our department's mailing to seniors, CCRA agreed, on behalf of HRDC, to send letters to approximately 65,000 tax filers who declared lower income levels on their income tax returns, but are not receiving the old age security. These letters provided information about the available benefits and encouraged the recipients to apply. This led to over 20,000 telephone calls for additional information, and as of June of this year we'd mailed 3,000 applications to potential clients.

    The committee recommended that HRDC undertake an extensive and systematic public awareness campaign on the GIS. In March HRDC launched a national GIS advertising campaign. A print ad ran in over 1,800 weekly community newspapers across Canada, including aboriginal and ethnic newspapers. The ad also appeared in specialty publications targeted for seniors. The print ads were then followed by national and local television and radio ads. You may have seen the one in last year's hockey playoffs. This campaign was meant to reach not only seniors, but also their support group of families, friends, advisors, and other professionals.

    The committee recommended that all future annual departmental performance reports of HRDC include information on the take-up of various programs. You will know that the information was contained in our departmental performance report tabled early in November and is currently on our website.

    Another issue raised by the committee was the suggestion to consider adopting a variable retroactive GIS or allowance payment period. At this time the government does not anticipate extending the current retroactivity provision. The object of the GIS is to help seniors with their immediate needs. The act specifies a retroactivity provision of 11 months, and there is also payment for the month in which the application is received. The government, through outreach communications and letters sent to potential clients, tries to make sure people are made aware of the benefits to which they may be entitled.

    The Old Age Security Act has two provisions that also enable the department to put things right, when the relevant circumstances arise, on the basis of appropriate information and evidence being provided. These include incapacity under section 28, where an application is received in respect of an individual who was not able to form or express his or her intention to apply for the benefit, and under section 32, where an individual has been denied a benefit or a portion of a benefit as a result of erroneous advice or administrative error.

Á  (1110)  

    I have outlined several initiatives and the positive results they're having over the past year. I have done so not in the spirit of conveying any sense that the work is complete, but rather to convey to you a strong message that we have been working very hard to raise the profile of the program. The work of this committee, all the articles and stories that focused attention on the GIS over the past year, our extensive advertising campaign, and many other ways the GIS has been communicated to Canadians in this very concentrated period have together done a great deal to help make people aware of the benefits for which they may be entitled. Close to 75,000 people are now receiving this benefit as a result.

    This past August, during its 82nd annual national convention, the Catholic Women's League of Canada, at a meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick, adopted a resolution that commended HRDC and CCRA for efforts to notify seniors about the guaranteed income supplement. The resolution also encouraged local parishes to host information sessions and workshops in order to inform all seniors of their possible entitlement to income support benefits and programs. While we are very grateful for the commendation, we are even more pleased at and appreciative of the boost from a national organization that will do even more to spread the word about Canada's social safety net. We encourage other community groups and organizations to join us in this effort.

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    If I can leave you with one message today, it is that the individual is the focal point of everything we do at HRDC. Our client-centred service is driving us to transform ourselves to put ourselves in its shoes as we continue to improve our programs and delivery mechanisms.

[English]

The incidence of seniors with low incomes has declined dramatically, from more than 20.8% in 1989 to about 8.2% in 1999. Our programs are recognized internationally. The social safety net that is enjoyed by our citizens is a major reason Canada is considered one of the best places in the world to live.

    I thank you very much for your attention, and I would now be pleased to take any questions.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Ms. Semaan.

    We'll go to Mr. Spencer. I think we'll start with eight minutes. We should have some time later, but we'll play it by ear.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Are we going to be addressed by both speakers?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): No.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: All right.

    Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm interested in process, I asked if Ms. Cloutier was going to make a presentation because it's my understanding that she's the one I should be asking my questions to. No offence intended, but if she has to answer these questions, then so be it.

    I want to examine a little the process, because on that committee that examined the GIS some time back we did deal with the process, but we went through that part really fast, because we were sort of distracted by the lack of information going to a number of clients and that sort of thing. I've been trying to clarify some things ever since. So my first question is simply this. Is a review tribunal decision final and binding in all cases, and if not, how can it be overturned and is it possible to overturn it in any way other than through a judicial review? In other words, does the minister have the authority to override what we read to be the final and binding decision by the review tribunal? If so, why the review tribunal?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier (Director General of Low-Income Pensioners, Income Security Programs, Department of Human Resources Development): The department is responsible for applying section 28 and section 32 of the Old Age Security Act, and those sections are dealing with incapacity and erroneous advice or administrative error. We know there are some cases that have gone to the review tribunal, and the department now is going to the Federal Court of Appeal to clarify the situation, and then our work on administrative error and erroneous advice, as well as incapacity. It is our view that the review tribunal has no jurisdiction on these sections.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: So in other words, if a review tribunal denies an application and your department later, by some miraculous touch of an angel or something, decides that this person has been, in fact, given erroneous information, you can go back and make a settlement, in spite of the review tribunal's already having dismissed that claim.

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: According to HRDC, the review tribunal does not have jurisdiction over administrative errors. There are some cases, very few cases, where we could have administrative errors, and then there is such need that the department can put things right. There are some cases that have gone to a review tribunal, and the department, in spite of the fact that the review tribunal doesn't have jurisdiction on administrative errors, has taken action and has decided to put things right for those clients, because when there is an administrative error, it is our duty to ensure that we put things right for these clients.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: What actually constitutes an official break-down letter? When a retroactive settlement is made, what constitutes the break-down letter that would accompany that payment?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: Normally, if there is an administrative referral, we send a letter to a client with a cheque to explain the cheque. Unfortunately, there are times when a letter is not sent. I think you refer to some possible cases where a letter was not sent. The department apologized for the situation and sent the letter to the client.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: In fact, I do have a copy of such a letter in my hand, from Mr. Rabinovitch, addressing the lack of a letter with a previous settlement cheque, and he does apologize. Are there any legal ramifications to that letter that comes along? Is it used for any legal purposes, tax purposes, or is it simply for the information of the client?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: It is an administrative document. It's a normal letter we send to the client. It's not legal, binding, or whatever, it is normal, a letter that explains the situation.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I'm sure you're familiar with this letter. So this becomes the official break-down letter. Even though it didn't arrive at the right time and didn't come from the right person in the right way, it still becomes that official break-down letter.

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: It is an administrative letter. It's a normal letter that we send.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: This, as you know, is a very unusual case, in that it was a five-year retroactive settlement to this particular senior, very precedent-setting, and even after a claim had been denied by the review tribunal. Can you tell us now, to your knowledge, how many class action suits are being brought by seniors to perhaps pursue that five-year retroactivity?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Actually, for the record, it is not precedent-setting. Basically, based on those two provisions under the act, the department does have the capacity to make something right when there is evidence provided. In that case you are referring to evidence was provided to the department that showed that administrative error had happened. Therefore, prior to that, we did not know the error had been made. When that case was provided to us and there was proof of administrative error, we were able to then set things right.

    You asked a second question about class action suits. I cannot comment on that. There is a class action suit, as I'm sure the members of this committee are aware, that has been launched, and whether it is approved to proceed is for the courts to decide. Right now I cannot comment on it.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: We're concerned, as I hope you are, that the seniors get their just rewards, if we can call it that. We're very concerned about that. We also, of course, would be concerned if this can be proven by a substantial number of people; it might have a very serious impact on the government's purse. But at the same time, this case has been a real mystery and it hasn't been examined thoroughly in this committee, or even in the House, because I think we didn't understand how a decision could be made after a review tribunal had refused to make that decision or to grant that appeal, and how and why that sort of settlement would have been made. It wasn't a small settlement, and we wonder why that would be make without any kind of letter of explanation until several requests, as I understand it, were made, followed by the arrival of the letter I just referred to here.

Á  (1125)  

    Ms. Nada Semaan: We are very concerned and we are working very hard so that every single Canadian who may be eligible does receive the guaranteed income supplement or any other benefit they are entitled to. We do very much share your concern, and again, thank you for that concern.

    As to the administrative errors, when any Canadian has proof that something like this has happened, we do correct that issue as soon as possible and send out the payment. As you are aware, there was and continues to be a lot of dialogue in this particular case. When any request has been made for information, we have tried to be as responsive as possible, and we will continue to be.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, may I let my colleague ask a question? Mr. Price who must leave in a few minutes. I will ask my questions after his.

[English]

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you.

    This is my first time at this committee, so I'm not even sure if it's something you would normally cover, but it's a particular case that happens fairly often in my riding, when family farms are exchanged. The seniors--because usually they're at that age--are already receiving an old age pension, but not the guaranteed income supplement. They turn over their farm to the younger generation. In that year they're perceived as having had an income from the sale of that farm, though no money changed hands or anything. So they can't get the guaranteed income supplement. The following years they do, because there's no money involved. Is this something that comes up fairly often? It does come up in my riding a lot.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Because the GIS is an income-based supplement, if, for some reason, someone does have an extra amount of income for that year, they could fall off. However, we do recognize that in some cases seniors may be in a position where their income--

    Mr. David Price: Well, they don't get any physical income.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Yes, but we get the numbers from the tax information. However, in the case that they do make income, that is calculated as part of their GIS numbers. If they had gained something and they lost out that year and they need the money this year, they can, through an option, request that we calculate their income based on the coming year's income and not the previous year's. Then we review the income, so that they don't get penalized.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: You said that it is required to give information about marital status and income. I would like to know why it is necessary to repeatedly give such information to obtain a renewal. Could it not be done automatically?

    I would also like to discuss simplifying the forms. People still visit our offices because they can’t understand the forms sent to them. They always find them to be very complex.

    Since they already receive very little, I would like to know if it is possible to further simplify the current forms. As such, why is it necessary to still fill out an additional form for a renewal?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: The Guaranteed Income Supplement is a yearly program. People must apply every year since the amounts are based on immediate needs and on income from the previous year. However, we are working to simplify our forms and processes.

    As for the GIS take-up last spring during which we tried to increase the participation in the program, in many cases, we did not ask our clients to disclose their marital status as we already had the information. However, since this information can change we asked them to confirm the marital status we had on file. We already had recorded their status and we would simply ask them to confirm it or change it.

    In conclusion then, we do continually improve our process in order to facilitate our clients’ applications.

Á  (1130)  

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: 1.2 million of the 1.4 million GIS recipients do get their benefits annually reinstated by filing their income tax returns. That income tax statement is considered their application for the subsequent years.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: They are not required to fill out an application in that case?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: No. If they fill out an income tax return, they are considered to have applied. On the other hand, people who do not fill out a tax return--

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Those people have to fill out an application.

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: Yes, because the government has no other way to get the required information.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: OK.

    Now I would like to talk about retroactive benefits. We had asked in the report to make the benefits retroactive for a period greater than 11 months. The government did not agree to our request citing that the law provides for 11 months only. However, in other cases the law permits longer retroactive periods.

    Why can’t it be longer than 11 months in this case?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: When the Guaranteed Income Supplement program was created, the goal of the Parliament was to meet the immediate needs of low income senior citizens. We would therefore lack coherence with the initial request to make the retroactive period longer than 11 months.

    That being said, the Guaranteed Income Supplement program grants a retroactive period of 11 months plus the month of the application. It is a section of the law that limits the retroactive period to 11 months plus the month of the application. It would require a legislated change to modify the retroactive period granted in the law.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But the problem is that people were unaware that they were entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Therefore the issue of the retroactive period being limited to 11 months is a problem that we have imposed on them. We realized at one point that many did not have access to the program.

    If the government did not properly inform people entitled to the program why don’t we go further? For how many years did the Guaranteed Income Supplement program exist while people did not know they were entitled to it?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: The Guaranteed Income Supplement program was created in 1967. For the most part, people were aware of it. Even among the people we added last spring, the majority of them had already received Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits in the past. However, the law requires people to renew their application each year. That’s why in the case of people filing a tax return, the process is much easier since we already have their information.

    On the other hand, there are a number of people who do not file a tax return and for which we need the application process.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Those are for new applicants. What about the ones that have not received their benefits for years. Can’t we go back?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: Under the provisions of the law, we cannot. The law provides for 11 months plus the month of the application.

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: You asked whether it is consistent. It is very consistent with other federal and provincial pension plans, for example, the senior supplement in British Columbia, the Ontario GAINS program, and the Quebec family allowance program. There are many other social security programs that still offer that one-year retroactivity.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you, Madame St-Jacques.

    We'll go now to Mr. Desrochers. We've been giving a little extra time, so you have at least nine minutes, and we'll play it by ear at the end of that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Semaan, Ms. Cloutier, I am filling in today for my colleague Mr. Marcel Gagnon who was unable to attend because he is sick. I am aware of the issues concerning the Guaranteed Income Supplement since I participated in information sessions. I held sessions in two ridings: my own riding, Lotbinière-L’Érable as well as Frontenac-Mégantic. These meetings were held to inform people about their rights.

    The people attending the information sessions were not always entitled to the benefits. Nevertheless, we were able to build a list of people who could potentially receive the benefits.

    You have made significant efforts to advertise the program. Ms. Semaan, you mentioned that the number of 380,000 disclosed by the media is a little exaggerated. You also question the BQ meetings conducted in several parts of Quebec.

    You say it is difficult to evaluate, but could you still give us approximate statistics with regards to the situation in Quebec?

Á  (1135)  

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: I would like to answer this question if that’s OK.

    The province of Quebec accounts today for 24.4% of Canadian senior citizens. Therefore in Canada 24.4% of senior citizens live in Quebec. The Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits in Quebec stands at 32.7%. In addition to our existing beneficiaries, if I recall correctly, we sent 23,600 letters to people who we thought to be potential beneficiaries of the Guaranteed Income Supplement program. 17,700 of these people responded and they now have become beneficiaries.

    But as I was saying earlier, in Quebec 32.7% get the Guaranteed Income Supplement although senior citizens represent 24.4% of the total population. This leads us to believe that the participation rate is fairly high.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You say 24,000 letters were sent to people.

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: We sent 23,600 letters to potential beneficiaries.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: What data did you use to decide who to send the letters to?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: We used the information from… Ms. Semaan said earlier that Custom and Revenue Agency sent letters to senior citizens receiving neither the Old Age Security nor the Guaranteed Income Supplement. In addition to the information we already had, we worked with other sources such as the Régie des Rentes that had people in their lists who could become beneficiaries of the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

    Finally, in order to reach more people, we also sent application forms to those who called us during our multimedia Campaign.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When you talk about people calling, are you referring to the 1-800 number?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: Yes, the 1-800.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you think it is effective to ask senior citizens to call the 1-800 line? Would it not be more effective to have additional resources in HRDC offices?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: We sent many application forms. The majority of the people responded, returning 17,700 forms out of 23,000. That is a pretty good rate of return.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I am talking about the 1-800 line.

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: The multimedia campaign and the 1-800 line were there as an additional help channel. Senior citizens often get help from their family, their kids and their friends. The purpose of the 1-800 line was also to inform the people helping senior citizens to apply. Therefore the 1-800 line was useful for these people even if it is hard for senior citizens to call a 1-800 line themselves. We are happy to send those people application forms. It was a quick way for us to inform friends and family of senior citizens.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Are there additional people in HRDC offices to respond to these calls since the media campaign or is it only done via the 1-800 line?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: We have received more applications from senior citizens so we had to obtain additional resources to process them promptly.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did these people stay or were they mainly temporary resources?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: I don’t know the answer to your question. I would have to check.

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Every year, generally around the GIS take-up, term employees are hired to help with the surplus that comes in. Usually, it is on a temporary basis, and it is known right up-front, in regard to processing. Also, it should be noted that because of the streamlined process we used this year, it was actually a lot easier for our service delivery agents to process. We were able to process them much more quickly as well.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You say you conducted an information campaign to reach certain groups, seniors in particular. Did you consider mandating HRDC civil servants to deliver information and possibly to process applications?

    Senior citizens, like my mother for instance, find it complicated when they receive Quebec or Federal correspondence and typically ask someone to help them. Even if you simplify things, seniors still prefer human interaction. They need to be appreciated.

    To that extent HRDC should make a greater effort to reassure them. You require them to fill application forms and in the process they worry about whether they will continue to receive benefits from the Guaranteed Income Supplement. It’s difficult for these people as they live under constant uncertainty.

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: We really try to listen to senior’s needs. That is why we have a public relations team that meets with senior citizens in the community: at senior associations, farmer associations and senior homes for instance.

    As soon as this group receives an inquiry from a person or group it attempts to respond to it the best possible way.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is the team dedicated to Guaranteed Income Supplement questions or does it deal with the greater issues of public relations for the entire department?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: The work of the team focuses on income security programs which include Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Pension Plan.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You talked earlier about retroactivity. I want to bring us back to previous comments made by Ms. St-Jacques. You are telling us that it addresses immediate needs and that it is to mitigate the Guaranteed Income Supplement that it was created.

    You also say that it is not possible to go back more than one year. But if the immediate need was in fact immediate five years ago then why not grant the total amount retroactively? You say that it can only be done by changing the law. Do you think that makes sense? You can choose to answer the question or decline to do so.

    Do you find normal that people entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement who were not contacted, and who eventually find out that they could have received benefits five or ten years ago, are confronted to such a rigid law? These people we talk about are among the most defenceless of our society.

    What could be done? Should we ask for a legislated change? Do you find normal that we limit the retroactive period to one year even in cases where people have been entitled for five or ten years?

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: It is actually up to the politicians and Parliament to determine legislation. We do administer it, however, and will administer it in the most efficient and effective way. We understand your plight in respect of low-income seniors. We work very hard, for that reason, to inform them. That is why we have an extensive outreach campaign that deals with trying to reach seniors in the communities where they reside. We've gone to homeless shelters to try to find seniors. We have undertaken extensive outreach efforts trying to inform them about our benefits.

    Through our partnership with CCRA in 1999, we started to streamline the process for automatic renewals. Last year we were also able to provide that safety net, so that if people did fall off, we could deal with it. This year we have been working with CCRA to make the process we used last year one that will happen every single year, and we will enhance that process every single year. As an example, last year, as I mentioned, 105,000 applicants were identified based on this new relationship and 75,000 were put into pay. This year we have started the run for finding out what potential applicants will come out of the CCRA system. At this point in time it is showing approximately 10,000. So this process is working and should enable us to reach Canadians. We are very proud of our efforts and very much understand your concerns, because we feel they're our citizens and our clients.

Á  (1145)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Will we have a second round Mr. Chairman? Thank you. I have other questions.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Mr. Desrochers.

    Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you.

    In your report you mention that more than 380,000 are not receiving the GIS, and you also mention that you are going to keep the number down. What means are you going to use to keep the number down?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: As mentioned earlier, the 380,000 was a number cited a number of times through the media. We have always publicly said we don't think it is anywhere near that. As a matter of fact, I'm happy to report that Mr. Richard Shillington, who identified that as a potential number earlier on last year, in a recent media interview said he doesn't think the number is 380,000. There's been some change, and he thinks it is probably closer to 100,000. As we said, we are very pleased that these numbers are starting to resonate and people are realizing that we are reaching Canadians as much as we can.

    However, as I mentioned, we created this process with the CCRA, as well as having continuous outreach efforts, which we engage in on a yearly basis, as well at income tax time. We are legislated to provide a T-4 slip to OAS and CPP recipients, and in that T-4 slip we inform Canadians about their rights to these benefits and the possibility of receiving those benefits. So through the communication campaigns, through publications, through outreach activities, as well as through this partnership with the CCRA, where we continue to streamline our processes, we feel it'll be easier for citizens to receive these benefits. Therefore, we honestly feel the success we have had this year is just the beginning. Again, I don't want you to think this success makes us feel that we should be comfortable and say we're done. Our job will not be done until we can reach all citizens.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: How much money is HRDC going to spend to communicate with the people to solve this problem? Also, some of the citizens speak different languages and all they know about that process and communication is when you send that information to them. Which sources are you using? Can they help those people to fill up their applications free of charge? In my riding some of the people don't know that.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: At any time a citizen can come into a Human Resource Centre and receive help in filling out the form. In addition, again through a partnership, CCRA volunteers every year to help seniors who cannot fill out their own tax forms. They will teach them how to fill them out and they will help them with that. They have also been trained on how to fill out the guaranteed income supplement form and have been helping us out there as well. That is, of course, free of charge. In addition. last year we spent a great deal on the public awareness campaign. Every year we have a certain amount of budget for communications and publications. As I noted, last year, when we did do the advertising campaign, we did it in a number of ethnic journals and newspapers.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: So how much money did you spend last year?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: The ad campaign cost $1.8 million.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: And how did they choose which ethnic media they should use?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: It was a very comprehensive campaign, and we hired media experts to help find the biggest reach of seniors. They actually suggested where we may be able to reach seniors the most. Some of the journals and some of the magazines were actually targeted to seniors. In addition, though, it is important to note that we were trying very much to reach seniors, but we were equally trying to reach their support mechanisms. I fill out my mother's old age security pensions and my father's retirement pensions. It's important to get to the family, the friends, the support systems, other professionals who help seniors. The seniors are very important, but we wanted to make sure we spread the word as broadly as possible.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Last time there was a lot of bad publicity about the social insurance number and the media. How do you know these application forms are going to the right person and to the right address?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: We treat privacy and security very seriously at HRDC in general, and the applications are processed in the best administrative manner, while respecting the Access to Information Act and all the acts we are bound by.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Mr. Malhi.

    Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

    Thank you very much for coming today. As you know, this has been quite a focus for the committee, and we're often dealing with government departments or agencies and trying to fight for new programs or changes in legislation, and it's often an uphill battle.

    On this issue, where something already exists, it's basically an entitlement, but there have clearly been problems, and it's been, I think, a very interesting exercise to see how the system works. I think your comments today have been really helpful, in that they're very specific. Often we get presentations that are so generalized you can't make head or tail of what's really going on. I was just looking over the original brief that came from the department in May, and it is very comprehensive, so it is very good to see the problem was taken very seriously and there has been a lot of follow-up and a lot of groups you have tried to get through to, rather than just sending something in the mail.

    I wanted to ask a couple of questions trying to get at whether we've got to the bottom of this problem. When you say 105,000 applications were sent out to people 65 or over, presumably these are folks who do not get GIS. Is that all the people in Canada who are 65 and don't get GIS? Where does that base come? You got a very high return rate, 75,000, which in itself would mean there's a huge problem. I thought that was quite incredible. Where does the 105,000 come from, and do we know whether it's close to 100%?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: As I mentioned earlier, it is really hard to give a number and say, this is the number. If we could identify the exact number, that would mean we could identify all potentially eligible recipients.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But do we know all Canadians who are 65 or older? We only know if they are filing an income tax return or currently receiving some sort of income support.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: That's a good point. We know when they are filing income tax returns about their income, but the income is not the only determinant of GIS and old age security. Depending on whether they're married or single, there is a different rate, and there's residency. They must be in receipt of an old age security pension in order to get their guaranteed income supplement. That is why we went with a two-pronged approach, one with whoever does file a tax return, where CCRA was able to go through their systems and say, anybody below a certain threshold should send us the information, so that we can then send them out--I would like to get back to that one--simplified application forms. The other prong was to find out tax filers who may have a low income, but are not in receipt of an old age security pension. CCRA, on our behalf, sent that group information about the programs and encouraged them to apply. Based on that, 3,000 applications for OAS were sent out.

    I would go to your point about the take-up of 75,000. You're right, 75,000 is an incredible number. In a number of targeted mail-outs we don't get the success we received this time. I honestly feel the reason for the success was that it was a very targeted response; all the individual had to do was verify the information, there was no complicated application form. The form--and I would be happy to leave it for you--that actually went out to recipients was basically a letter in big print that says, based on the tax information we have, this is what we think you are entitled to; please sign here if this information is correct and return it to us. At the beginning, when these were being filled out, it was very heartwarming to see where people were actually taking a look at their numbers. We rounded it off, without putting the penny. People were actually coming on to their tax system and noticing that we didn't put 16¢, for example, and they would put that information in. People were responding to it, understanding it. At the time a number of seniors' groups and seniors' organizations actually called us. St. Christopher's House was one in Toronto that actually said, thank you, this is so understandable. We had a few phone calls on our 1-800 number saying, is this a real letter from the Government of Canada? It is so easy and so understandable. I do believe this ease of access was a main contributor to having such a high take-up.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: I think there's obviously a lesson to be learned then. Targeting in the right way and getting people information that is actually accessible and understandable is really important. In fact, St. Christopher's was one of the first groups that raised the issue.

    But to come back to my question, maybe I could ask it the other way around. I'm curious as to whether or not we know this. If there are people over 65 who don't file income tax returns, who don't receive OAS or some form of income security, who would those people be? One group I could think of is older women who did not contribute to CPP, who maybe did not file on income tax, a group that may be more at risk or more vulnerable, women who did not engage in waged work. Are there another 100,000 seniors out there, or is it more like 5,000? Or do you feel that you've captured the people we need to get to?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: I would hesitate to give a guess on the numbers, but I'll answer a few of your questions.

    With old age security, we do have a 98% take-up, if you look at Statistics Canada numbers, of the number of seniors who live in Canada.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So you have those people on record somewhere?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: We do have the people we are paying. That actually just closes the net. As you go higher up in the income levels, there is a repayment in respect of the old age security as well. That would account for some of the 2% that is not counted in that 98%. So the net is not as big as it was when we were working with CCRA to get the tax filers, and we do believe we have found a very appropriate mechanism to reach out to Canadians.

    However, you are right, we may not know they exist in the system. There are homeless people out there, and some homeless people are seniors. That is why we do have extensive outreach efforts whereby we try to find the homeless. They are not on any system, and they are probably the most disadvantaged Canadians, so we do want to find them. Also, within our own department we have the homelessness initiative, and we try to partner with that to find out how we can get to as many shelters as possible. In addition, we've done a lot of targeted work with aboriginals, because that is another group that could fall beyond our sight. We want to make sure any aboriginals who may be eligible for the benefit are informed about it. Again, there are extensive outreach efforts in Ontario, Alberta, and a number of areas in Quebec that target aboriginals and any other groups we can find.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: It sounds as if you've done a very good job with the outreach, the advertising, simplifying the form. These are all very good parts of solving the puzzle. To me, there's a very strong lesson here. When the federal government can work in a way that is not going to the lowest common denominator, when we can work in ways that are more creative in reaching people or making a connection, it really pays off. This issue got a huge amount of publicity and it really touched people. Here are all these poor seniors who are entitled to money, and they're not getting it. I'm sure it made people partly angry, partly frustrated, and with that attention, you've obviously responded. How do you now ensure that this becomes part of the way you continue to work, so it's not just a big flash? It's obviously got to be a sustained effort, because people are turning 65 all the time.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: I thank you very much for raising that issue. I am very proud of the work of our people in the department. A lot of people worked extremely hard. Both professional time and a lot of personal and private time was devoted to this in order to make such a concentrated difference in such a short amount of time. However, you're right, this has to be sustained. This is not something you just deal with once and it's over, you must continue. Low-income seniors are one client group.

    One thing we have done within income security programs--I can give you a lot more, but I won't bore you to death--is put in charge within HRDC at the director general level a client champion, someone for each of our client groups, survivors, persons with disabilities, low-income pensioners. Madame Cloutier is the director general of low-income pensioners. That is based on our clientele. I was not trying to minimize that point about putting ourselves in the client's shoes. We are asking all of our employees, if you put yourself in your client's shoes, can you streamline the process, can you make the service more efficient, can you reach Canadians more? We are generating those ideas and putting them into action. We are very grateful that technology has enabled us to start putting in some of these processes. A couple of years ago the automation was not even available that has allowed us to simplify to the point where it was that understandable, we could use the information, and we could identify it. As technology continues to improve, so will we, but we are not relying solely on technology. By putting ourselves in the client's shoes, by talking to our clients through round tables, through a number of avenues, by getting their best practices and what their needs are, we are trying to make our programs as responsible as possible, ensuring that public stewardship is maintained and that we administer it as effectively as possible. With all of that, we are looking at all our benefits. We are looking at everything we do in a spirit of modernizing, streamlining, and making it much more client-centred.

    Of course, efficiency's very important, and responsiveness is just as important. It has to be fair, it has to be simple. Citizens have told us over the past number of years, this is what we want government to be. We have embraced those principles and in each of our target client groups have tried to develop very concrete strategies to help us reach our goal. I would love to tell you in 20 years I can come here and say, we've conquered, or in 10 years, or in 5 years, but our true goal will be to continually improve and to continually enhance whatever we do.

  (1205)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Ms. Davies.

    I want to ask one quick question before we go to the next round, based on a question Ms. Davies asked. In the opening of your presentation you mentioned that about 3.9 million Canadians over the age of 65, about 98% of seniors, receive an old age pension. That number I assume comes from census data. I'm wondering why we can't use census data to determine how many people are eligible for the GIS, but are not receiving it.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: As I mentioned, there are a number of variables that would entitle someone to the old age security pension. One is number of years of residency. Another one is marital status. There is the age, but also there is the number of years in Canada. We don't know when people leave, when they come back. We don't do data matching with immigration, nor do we have the capacity to do data matching as people leave the country. The information we must get from people is how we know the grouping. As well, the old age security program, as I mentioned earlier, does have a provision to the effect that as you get over a certain threshold, you are no longer eligible for it or you start getting a reduced amount. Right now, for example, over 78,000 Canadians would not receive the income because their cut-off is above the $92,541; if you were making that amount of money, you would not be entitled to an old age security pension. If it were just a straight cut of numbers, we could use census data, but there are many other variables.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): We'll go to a five-minute round, giving people lots of latitude. I'm trying to endear myself, as the new chair, to everyone.

    Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I apologize for zeroing in on a couple of cases, but with my logical way of thinking, I need to have something to gauge this by. Could you or anybody in the department tell me whether Treasury Board or HRDC or the litigation committee were ever given disclosure and involved in that case we're talking about in Toronto, that retroactive case? Did legal counsel consider it either before or after the review tribunal?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: We don't like to discuss personal files, because we have to ensure that we protect the identity of our client. We cannot comment on a personal file. However, we understand that for this file, you have received authorization to discuss it, and we will be happy to respond to your concerns personally, but we can not comment publicly.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay. I'm trying to be a little sensitive with what I say about personal files, but I want to go to another as well here.

    This is all a part of the process here; in one case it goes one way and it goes the other way in this case. The review tribunal sided with Mrs. Tucker with reference to a small amount she had overpaid. The tribunal said it was because of erroneous advice she relied upon from the department. You referred to Mr. Shillington. He suggested that HRDC is willing to pay thousands of dollars in legal costs to try to recover this $1,300; he implied some power struggle between the review tribunal and the minister, who's got the final say here. Why would HRDC pursue such a small amount when we know the legal costs are going to be much higher than that, rather than settle out of court, when this particular individual even offered it?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: You did mention the name of the client again, and so I cannot comment on the particulars of the case. It is before the courts.

    The allowance is a monthly benefit that is paid to spouses and common-law partners of the GIS recipients, to survivors between the ages of 16 to 64 who are low-income. If there was some form of erroneous advice or administrative error, it is up to the minister, with evidence, to rectify that situation. When evidence is not presented, we must administer the act as we are asked to administer it, and that is what is currently happening.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay, let me give you a thumbnail picture of what I'm really going on about. In one case the person applied and the application was denied. You go and apply, and if it's denied, you go to the review tribunal. If the tribunal then denies it, you go to the judicial review. However, there's nothing mentioned in there about a minister stepping in-between the tribunal and the judicial review. In the latter case the minister stepped in and is going through the courts to retrieve money. Her edict perhaps had no legal bearing, I don't know, I don't understand this. Why did she have to go to the courts, when in the other case, rather than going to the court for the judicial review, $20,000 was handed out? Explain that for me.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Again, it's difficult to talk about specifics of any cases. However, in one case there was evidence of administrative error. In the other case we had no evidence of administrative error, and so we are managing according to the legislation that currently exists.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: You mean the review tribunal's ruling that there was administrative error is no evidence, in your mind, that there was?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: We wouldn't be arguing the case if we thought there had been evidence of error.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: You see the problem, though. Here's a tribunal that says there was error on the part of your department. Then we have the pursuit of the case by the department in trying to recover. In the other case the review board says no, and it goes the other way.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: We've got two parallel processes. One is the judicial review process, and as you mentioned, there's a review trial. There's the judicial system, the court system, right after that as well. The issues you are presenting relate to a part of section 37 of the Old Age Security Act that allows the department to forgive overpayment benefits in four circumstances. One is overpayment that cannot be collected in the foreseeable future. Another is that the cost of collecting an overpayment would far exceed the overpayment. The third one is that collecting the overpayment would cause undue hardship. And there is the case if an overpayment resulted in erroneous advice or administrative error. The department will be arguing before the Federal Court of Appeal early next year that the review tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the particular circumstances I just identified in those four points.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: So you confirm what I said, there is a struggle here between the minister and the tribunal.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: No, I'm not confirming, I am just identifyingy that they are two parallel processes. With administrative error, it is the right of the minister to make things right. The other one is a judicial process. Those two are not one and the same.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: So the judicial review is not final and binding, that's what you're telling me, and yet it's advertised to be binding.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: It's currently in the judicial process, and that is why it is going up.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I meant the tribunal.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: The tribunal process is the first level of the appeal, and then it goes on to the court. The client who feels that the wrong decision has been made can go to a federal court and appeal the decision. Likewise, if the minister is uncomfortable with the decision of the review tribunal, it is not a judicial body, and so we do at times go to the Pension Appeal Board to seek a judicial review of an area to get clarification. It's standard procedure.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): We're going to have to leave it at that for now.

    Mr. Mahli.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    How does HRDC cause community groups to spread Canadian social security net information to the public? Does HRDC provide any funding to those community groups?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: We have our outreach efforts through which we work with them. We do not have a capacity within the old age security or Canada Pension Plan to fund community groups in respect of delivering the services. We do have a lot of partnerships. One was the Women's Catholic League, as I mentioned. Because the bottom line is sharing common goals and a common vision, we are all there to help the individual receive the benefits they are entitled to. Many of these communities are working with us to help their citizens, to help their community work, and through their day-to-day activities they are encouraged and do send out the message. We will provide any support we can through our infrastructure, whether it be our offices or our outreach officers, to help with spreading that message.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Do you find any abuse in the system? If so, what steps are followed to stop it? In every system, every department there are some abuses.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: As part of our ongoing administration of the program, we do annual program integrity reviews. We look for any cases of potential fraud or potential misuse, and we reconcile the situation if it arises.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Mr. Mahli.

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Earlier I asked questions about the 1-800 line and the staffing of local offices of HRDC. You were telling us that the staff is only added on a temporary basis during peak periods. Are you planning to do more in terms of staffing to reach your Guaranteed Income Supplement target audience?

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: As I mentioned earlier, we try to meet the needs of our programs, this program, as well as the Canada Pension Plan and all the other benefits across that, with the resource base we have and within the administrative fiscal framework in which we operate. As you all know, with the aging population, our continued growth of citizens who will be coming for our services, if we weren't looking at streamlining, if we weren't looking at ways to make it easier and to automate the way in which we administer, we would have to continually hire more and more people. So we are taking action right now to streamline, to modernize, to automate where possible, and to concentrate our efforts on being able to absorb whatever workload increase is coming through with the existing base, wherever possible.

  (1220)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you think it makes sense to attempt to reach your clientele by putting forms on a web site or by implementing a 1-800 information line? Do you think seniors are apt to make use of online services or to spend five, ten or fifteen minutes on a 1-800 line to get information?

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Actually, contrary to what I thought, seniors are using the web more than probably most other groups. However, I go back to my own personal example. I do work full-time, and because I am the person who takes care of my parents' account, I would most likely use that to help take care of their affairs. That is a very viable service channel, as I would see it. However, that doesn't mean all the other service channels are not going to be open. People can still come into the office if they like. In addition, seniors actually do prefer the telephone as their service channel. In some cases they live in rural settings, and they don't want to travel all the way to an HRDC office, so that is a very effective means. I believe all the possibilities, whether it be the Internet, whether it be the mail system, whether it be through being able to walk into an actual HRDC office, whether it be via telephone, whether it be through outreach capacities, whether we go to seniors' organizations and work with those groups face to face and try to reach citizens, are equally important, but what we will do is offer them in every capacity possible.

[Translation]

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: Let’s not forget that the majority of seniors renew their Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits by filing a tax return. For them it is very easy to renew as long as their income is below a certain level.

    Other seniors that do not file a tax return can communicate with the department. We encourage them to do so through our public relations group. But the majority of senior citizens renew via the tax return.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Earlier you talked about a legislative change to increase the retroactivity period of 11 months plus one. Can you identify the section of the law that is pertinent for this change?

[English]

    Ms. Nada Semaan: I don't know the exact section, but for the record, I don't think we identified that we are looking at legislative changes. I think we said it is in the legislation that the 11-month retroactivity exists.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You do not know the name of the Act?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: Yes, it is the Old Age Security Act.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When was it adopted?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: It was first adopted in 1927 and has been modified regularly. I will get the section of the law that discuses retroactivity.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Mr. Desrochers.

    Ms. Davies, I believe you have a question.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I have a brief question following up on the retroactivity. The standard is 11 months, but you have said in some circumstances that can be extended. First, can you tell us how many cases there are that have gone past the 11 months? Second, what kind of information is required? Does it take years to do that? What does someone have to endure to get past the 11 months?

  (1225)  

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Before I answer that question, for the record, it is subsection 11(7) in the act that talks about retroactivity.

    We do have very few cases, and I can't give you the exact number. Anecdotally, I can tell you there are very few, because we have contacted our regions and we do continually communicate with them. While this is a nationally administered program, it is delivered at the regional level, and so many times this happens at the local level.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Who makes the decision? Is it a local decision about whether or not to extend the 11 months?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Yes, but at any time, if there's clarification needed, some advice from legal counsel or from the head office, they will contact us.

    Ms. Libby Davies: We're talking about a handful of cases?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Yes, nothing that warrants any kind of database of information that we would be monitoring. It is a very small number.

    As to your question of endurance and what a client might have to do, an example would be where someone will say, my mother couldn't have applied, she has Alzheimer's. Here's her medical condition. She has not been able to apply for that benefit for the past seven years. Obviously, there's incapacity there. Another thing is when a person is in a coma. It's quite possible that they do not have the capacity to do it, and at some point someone will say, we didn't know: my mother was in this particular situation; here is the medical evidence.

    Then there is administrative error or erroneous advice. If there is a record showing we sent something or we didn't send something or we made a mistake, we are able to correct that mistake. It is not retroactivity, it is just correcting an error.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But to when the error was made?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much, Ms. Davies.

    Mr. Spencer, just one set of very brief questions, and then we'll wrap this up.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: If you go to the HRDC website and look at the process for appeal and even the printed materials, they say the review tribunal's decision is final and binding. We've just talked about two specific cases this morning, and you have confirmed that this review tribunal's decision is not final or binding in either, one going one way and one going the other way. How can you leave that on? What is then the real purpose of the review tribunal?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: As I mentioned earlier, the appeal system is multi-tiered. There are reconsiderations that come in at the departmental level if someone feels we have made a mistake or wants us to review their case and review it a second time. We will do that for an individual without having to go to a review tribunal and review the decision. If they are not happy with the decision we have provided to them, they are entitled to go to the review tribunal, which is an arm's-length organization that will then create a final decision. However, the client can decide to take it to a further court, or the crown may require it to go to a further court for clarification, a judicial body. The review tribunal is not a judicial body, and at times we do go to the Pension Appeals Board for a judicial review, and then to the court system. So it is one tier of many. It is part of the normal process.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: You said the client could go to that court, but in neither case did the client go to the court. It was always interrupted by the action of the minister.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: In one case we are currently in the court. In the second case evidence of an administrative error was provided, so the minister did what she's mandated to do, to make it right for the citizen. We do not send people to court if we have evidence of either incapacity or administrative error. We try to deal with those cases in the most compassionate and efficient way possible within the legislation. And we are acting within the bounds of the legislation.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Thank you very much.

    Now I have to ask a couple of questions, and I'll try to be brief. First, it wasn't clear to me in your initial answers to Mr. Spencer whether an explanation was provided as to why there was never a break-down letter sent in the case he was referring to. Did you ever explain that?

    Ms. Charlotte Cloutier: There was an administrative error by the department. Then the department sent, in fact, a courier. The cheque was hand-delivered. Normally, a letter would have been sent with this cheque, but because it was not done, a letter was sent later. The administrative letter was sent later to this client, with a break-down.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Okay.

    Because we've talked so much about appeals and that kind of thing--and maybe I'm asking for a long explanation, which probably we don't want to get into--can you explain to me the appeal process when it comes to an application's being rejected? You have three tiers, I believe, in the department, and after that you can go to court. Is that correct?

    Ms. Nada Semaan: No. If an applicant is rejected and wishes to have a reconsideration within the department, we can do that. We will have a second service delivery agent review the file to provide an independent assessment and a clear view of the situation. Should the person still be denied and should they want to seek additional avenues, they are entitled to go to the review tribunal, which is actually an arm's-length organization in being able to determine the case. Should they still be denied by the review tribunal, they can take it to the judicial system.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): Okay, and if it's Canada Pension Plan, they could go to the Pension Appeals Board.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): So you have three levels there, but two for GIS.

    Ms. Nada Semaan: Well, they can still go to the judicial system.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Monte Solberg): All right, I think we'll leave it at that.

    Thank you very much to both of you for your time today, and thank you to my colleagues for making it reasonably easy to run this meeting.

    This meeting is adjourned.