Old Age Security Act
Motion in Amendment--Debate
March 2, 2022
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-12 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:
“1 (1) Subparagraph (c)(i.1) of the definition income in section 2 of the Old Age Security Act is replaced by the following:
(i.1) the amount of the payment under the program referred to in section 275 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1,
(2) The definition income in section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the fol-”.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, one of the valuable experiences to date for me as a member of this chamber is learning from our debates. Honourable colleagues consistently bring forward thoughtful arguments that I know, as an independent senator, have influenced my own thinking on many topics we have debated. And I believe that is the value of debate — to be open to listening to the positions of others and being able to adjust one’s own view so that the subject at hand ends up in a better place for all those affected by the eventual decision.
In the case of Bill C-12, there is no question that the objective of getting benefits into the hands of eligible senior citizens is beyond reproach. I want to reassure honourable colleagues that I am fully supportive of this objective.
At committee we heard from the minister and from senior government officials about the importance of approving this bill by March 4. We also heard of the processing of applications for OAS benefits for seniors having been on hold these past weeks pending the passage of Bill C-12 by March 4. That passage would allow the information flow to resume, enabling the system to process benefits by the beginning of July.
The people we heard from were very focused on the process, the mechanics, if you will, of ensuring OAS income is delivered and not affected by the payments noted in the bill’s only clause. After hearing the minister and officials, I have no doubt this objective will be realized in terms of getting the benefits out. They know how to do it.
At the same time, and as honourable colleagues know, we’ve encountered a problem emanating from the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, affecting the OAS Act. That error, which was caused by Parliament and not necessarily the public service, resulted in certain COVID payments being counted as income for OAS/GIS recipients — a situation that legislators including, I believe, all of us, want to correct. This is the general scope of Bill C-12; to exempt certain payments from income in calculating OAS/GIS benefits.
This error has been known since at least last fall. As Bill C-12 was developed and made its way through the process from the department to where it is now, this error was known.
The other place considered Bill C-12 and recognized its importance to seniors. Its importance was underscored by the fact that, after receiving second reading, it was not subject to the lower chamber’s committee process and was deemed to have been read the third time. All members of the lower chamber agreed to this process, and the bill arrived at our chamber.
I, and I believe all of us, want the Senate to pass Bill C-12 in a timely manner. The amendment that has been proposed is not complicated. It is an amendment that establishes the legal foundation for the civil service to be whole and beyond reproach in delivering the COVID benefits. But some parliamentarians consider small errors that can be corrected later may also become points of discussion for other parts of government when reporting to the public, especially when those errors call into question the program’s legal foundation.
Can we agree to amend this bill? Some of my honourable colleagues have raised a doubt, and the risk, associated with returning this bill to a House that has a minority government.
If we do agree to the proposed amendment, I understand it could be sent back to the other place before Friday. I have also heard some honourable colleagues express their concern that it may not be dealt with in a timely manner or, indeed, passed.
In a minority Parliament, political parties are more sensitive to the concerns of Canadians. An election can occur at any time. My point is that no political party in the other place wants to prevent benefits for seniors. Therefore, given its rapid, unanimous passage a few days ago, it is difficult to accept that it would not be considered and accepted by the other place before the end of the day on Friday.
I am sure the leadership in the other place does not want to jeopardize the agreement by most, if not all, parliamentarians as Bill C-12 must pass for the benefit of our senior citizens.
In closing, I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-12. I also want to feel that I have, and we have, done our jobs in improving a bill after sober second thought — more importantly, affixing an anomaly that otherwise would place public service administrators in a position of expertly administering a process, but without the appropriate legal authority in place.
Senator Cordy noted a few minutes ago that the original error was previously embraced by this chamber. How can we continue as senators knowing we place this institution in a position of accepting a bill that has a fundamental error in law? While some would argue that there are other future methods to correct this error, my 32 years of public service tells me that, in that regard, nothing can be guaranteed until it is in fact done.
We should fix the problem now and demonstrate to Canadians that the Senate is indeed an institution that plays an important role in Canada’s legislative process. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I listened to the comments by Senator Patterson, and I want to thank him and Senator Griffin for their contribution to the study of Bill C-12 at committee. It is important for us to have these types of discussions.
Senators Patterson, Griffin and Quinn have clearly and concisely expressed their concerns regarding the numbering error contained in the 2021 Budget Implementation Act.
We saw this same amendment proposed at committee where it was defeated by committee members.
Honourable senators, during testimony the minister and departmental officials acknowledged the numbering error. In fact, all honourable senators now know there was a drafting error in the 2021 Budget Implementation Act as a result of an amendment in the other place, as explained in Senator Griffin’s second reading speech. A section incorrectly references section 276 rather than section 275.
The Minister of Seniors gave assurances to committee members that she will work to ensure this numbering error is corrected, while stressing the importance of meeting the March 4 deadline for passing Bill C-12.
Colleagues, I know that if we miss the March 4 deadline there are risks to the timely processing of benefits for tens of thousands of our most vulnerable citizens.
Seniors who receive GIS benefits and work part-time, minimum-wage jobs are some of our most vulnerable citizens. We all agree the drafting error should be corrected, but the committee also heard from Finance officials and department of seniors officials that this numbering error will not have an impact on the delivery of benefits for seniors.
Honourable senators, the real risk for vulnerable seniors is great if we don’t pass this bill on time.
When asked at committee by Senator Kutcher:
What do you think would be the response of Canadian seniors if this didn’t go through in a timely way on the basis of what they may perceive as an arcane technicality? What would be the response and what would happen to people?
Devorah Kobluk, Senior Policy Analyst of the Income Security Advocacy Centre, had this to say:
I think the real question is, do we want more seniors in this predicament? The answer I would hope is no.
Leila Sarangi, National Director, Campaign 2000, said:
. . . I think the kind of harm on top of what they’ve already experienced would be very devastating for the seniors who we’re talking about.
Honourable senators, I appreciate the senator’s attention to detail, but let’s not put seniors’ benefits at risk. As I said at committee, let us not allow perfection to get in the way of making things better. This numbering error will not affect the delivery of benefits to seniors. We do know, however, that there is a real risk that an amendment could delay GIS payments.
Low income, vulnerable seniors who are still working deserve to not have to worry about receiving their Guaranteed Income Supplement in July.
I will repeat what I said in committee when I called on committee members to not take out our frustrations on the government or government officials, because the real negative impact of an amendment would be to our most vulnerable seniors — those who are collecting the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
As I did at committee, I will tell you that I will not be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Cordy. I hear your comments, and we have heard this kind of argument so many times before, that we must do this by a certain date. We all know that this can be adjusted when the House decides to accept an amended bill. It was interesting to listen to my new colleague Senator Quinn, because those of us who have been here have all seen where things have gone through committee, things have been missed, then they’ve been discovered, and that it would have been a very simple act here in the Senate today to say, “Let’s fix this. Let’s just do it while we can.”
There is no reason this cannot go to the House of Commons. If they are very concerned about the deadlines, which we all know are flexible, they have days to pass it. They still sit on Friday in the other House.
As everyone has said, this is our job. This is the chamber of sober second thought. This is the place to catch the errors and fix them. It’s what we do at committee, and it’s what we do here on the floor of the chamber.
I can sense the frustration in your voice, and we all feel those same frustrations. This is a technical amendment. This is from the statutes of the budget implementation bill, and the section referred to is section 275.
This had initially been section 276 but, because a section was deleted from the bill in the other place, it became section 275. So then when we referred to section 276 in the budget implementation bill, unfortunately the number was incorrect. But the intent was there.
I understand your frustration, but this is simply a numerical error, and I know it’s an error. But it’s a numerical error and we should not let the benefits to seniors be held up. Thank you.
Would you take another question?
Yes.
I understand your point. I hear you that it’s somehow just a technical error. But sometimes technical errors have consequences. I think if we let these things slide and say, as we used to say in the TV business, “We’ll fix it in post” — we have the opportunity to do this here, to conduct our business, to do our job, to do our work. If it’s a simple fix — I’m not part of the committee, so I’m just hearing it sitting here in the chamber — it seems to me that we could do it in the time it takes to debate, disagree and fight over whether it’s a technical amendment or a substantive one. It’s an error that we could fix, and it seems to me that we should do just that.
Thank you. The House of Commons is somewhat tied up with establishing the parliamentary oversight committee, so I’m not sure they’re going to drop that to look at this bill. And the House of Commons does not hold votes on Fridays. Looking at the week ahead, this is Wednesday, so there is not much time. I personally would not take the risk that seniors would not receive their money.
My question is this: You can be assured that no minister, no senior representative — and there are those in this chamber with more experience than I — can tell you that they will definitively put something in or not in an act or a bill. They can’t do that.
So that calls into question their ability to give us —
My apologies, Senator Quinn. I have to interrupt you. Senator Cordy will be given the balance of her time on this matter at the next sitting of the Senate to entertain questions if she so desires.
