One of the great realities of Canada is our deep commitment to maximizing the quality of life enjoyed by all our citizens.

We are among the luckiest people in the world. We have a country rich in prosperity and good fortune. For years Canada was ranked number one in the United Nations quality of life index, and we remain in the top five.

It is important to remember, however, that the Canada we enjoy is due to the hard work of the generations before us who fought and won wars and struggled through the Great Depression to make the country what it is today.

It is also important that the government not forget all that today’s senior citizens have given - and that it support them to the level they require.

Canada has come a long way in supporting seniors. Recent figures from Statistics Canada have reported a decrease in the poverty rate among Canadian seniors over the past ten years, from 11 to 7.3 per cent.

In the Federal Budget last Wednesday, the Government of Canada announced a number of initiatives to continue supporting Canadian seniors.

The New Horizons program for seniors received ten million dollars per year in the budget of 2004 to promote voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors. The Minister of Finance announced in the 2005 budget that the funding for New Horizons will increase from $10 million a year to $25 million a year.

The Minister of Finance also announced the creation of a National Seniors’ Secretariat to be established within the Department of Social Development to serve as the focus for relations between seniors and the Government of Canada. One of the principle responsibilities of this new secretariat will be to coordinate government programs and services for seniors. The Secretariat will also work with Seniors’ organizations, conduct research on areas of importance for seniors and work on policy development.

Again in the budget last week, the government announced they are increasing the maximum yearly GIS benefit by $432 for a single senior and $796 for a couple. This increase will be phased in over two years.

There was tremendous support for this increase from Parliamentarians and with a massive surplus projected for the next number of years, I am confident that if we keep the pressure on the government we can expect further increases in future budgets.

While the increases to the GIS is more than welcome, I am still very concerned with the way the program is being delivered. I am looking forward to the establishment of the Seniors’ Secretariat as another area that can investigate the problems in the delivery of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The ongoing problems with the program – and the number of eligible Canadians who are not receiving payments – would be an excellent first task for the new Secretariat.

I have recently been speaking about flaws in the delivery of the GIS program and I want to speak to you today about this problem. As you are well aware, the Guaranteed Income Supplement is a benefit for low income seniors. The basic requirements include:

you have lived in Canada for at least 10 years;
you are 65-years or older;
as a single individual, you have a yearly income of less than $13, 464.

The monthly benefit can have a value up to $560 and can make a tremendous difference in the lives of seniors.

However, far too many Canadian seniors have not received the assistance to which they are entitled.

Let me give you a little background on my interest in this subject.

I first learned about the problems of the GIS benefit in the fall of 2003. I was attending a meeting of the Senate Committee of National Finance that was reviewing the estimates, when I was surprised to see the GIS information showed 39, 000 fewer recipients than forecasted. That is when I began to ask questions.

The first thing I learned was that contrary to what the name implies the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not guaranteed. Seniors must apply for the program, even though many are unaware that it even exists.

I also discovered that there are thousands of seniors across this country who are eligible but are not receiving the benefit.

Numbers produced by Statistics Canada, show that in 2002 there were over 134 , 000, tax filing seniors across the country who were eligible but did not receive the benefit.

In 2002 there were 450 tax filing seniors in Prince Edward Island alone, who were eligible but not receiving the benefit. But one can assume that the number of eligible seniors who are qualified but not receiving this GIS benefit is even greater because the statistics are based only on those seniors who file income tax returns.

The government department which is responsible for the GIS has taken steps to improve the situation. Beginning in February 2002, the then Department of Human Resources and Development Canada began a nationwide Take-Up Initiative in an attempt to inform more seniors about the benefit.

The department sent out mailings across the country and began a national advertising campaign.

Still, the government continues to miss large numbers of seniors who are entitled to the benefit. Not enough has been done to identify eligible seniors who do not owe any taxes and therefore do not file any tax returns.

Yet another problem arises once eligible seniors learn about the GIS benefit. I would like to highlight the contradiction between the responsibility of the citizen versus the practice of the state:

In response to a newspaper story on problems with the GIS, I received an inquiry from a senior who found out he was eligible for, but not receiving the GIS for a number of years. When he applied he was surprised to be informed that he was only entitled to retroactive payment of 11 months. However, if you compare that to someone who owes taxes to the government the same citizen would be forced to pay back taxes for six years.

The government is being inconsistent and unfair in short-changing seniors for unmet obligation on the part of the government and at the same time insisting tax owing citizens pay the government an additional forty nine months more than the government is prepared to pay.

I would urge the seniors’ clubs to continue their efforts to identify deserving seniors in Prince Edward Island who are eligible but not collecting the GIS¼

The delivery of the GIS is a problem of the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Parliamentarians voted to create the GIS program and the bureaucracy has failed to deliver the program as parliamentarians wanted. It was for that reason that I requested the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser to audit the program.

In a January 13, 2005 letter to the Auditor General, I wrote:

I understand your mandate involves auditing programs to see that they run economically and efficiently. I would request that you consider examining the administration of the GIS benefit because although its name implies the eligible seniors are ‘guaranteed’ the benefit that is not the case. The Government of Canada has not taken all the necessary steps to ensure that they pay low income seniors the money that they are entitled to receive. The program has a tremendous potential to help Canadian seniors but as it currently operates it is unable to reach all those in need. I hope that your office can examine and recommend changes to correct this worthwhile but fundamentally flawed program.

I have also corresponded with the Prime Minister and various cabinet Ministers on fixing this problem. The excuses from the bureaucracy include everything from privacy concerns about government departments sharing personal information to a suggestion that part of the problem is that homeless people are not claiming GIS. But that doesn’t explain that thousands of tax filing seniors were not receiving the benefits they were eligible for. I have limited knowledge of homelessness but I am confident that not many homeless people are filing income tax returns.

At a meeting two weeks ago of the Senate Committee on National Finance, I raised the privacy excuse with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who was appearing before the finance committee on another matter, and expressed to her my concern that the privacy issue was being used as a smoke screen for the failure of the government to deliver the GIS program.

I wrote to her after the meeting and requested that at one of her inter-departmental meetings she raise the issue of the GIS delivery problems.

And I want to raise another caution: As the level of the GIS increases, the provincial government may attempt to claw back some of the money - in the form of increased costs for seniors’ housing or other mechanisms. It has happened before, and it may happen again.

In conclusion, I wish to briefly discuss another topic - the importance of decentralizing the national government from Ottawa to the regions of Canada.

As a first step, I think such a move will be welcomed by many Canadian communities. The impact of decentralization are most beneficial when a whole department is relocated. When you move a department from Ottawa, the relocated community receives everyone from the Deputy Minister to the lowest paid job. In other words you have a range of positions, responsibilities and salary levels. In my research on government departments I discovered that over 70 percent of the most senior positions are located in Ottawa.

I am concerned that the Service Canada announcement on decentralization in last weeks budget revolves solely around support services. We have to be very careful that the positions being relocated are not the lowest paid jobs but also include senior bureaucrats who bring a significant and beneficial impact to the receiving community. The regions of Canada should insist on a relocation of a full department of government as opposed to glorified call centres.

In Canada, the only national department moved to a region occurred almost 30 years ago when the Department of Veterans Affairs was moved to Charlottetown.

The benefits to Prince Edward Island have been tremendous: 1 200 secure jobs, a stable work force and a real contribution to the local economy with a yearly payroll of sixty eight million dollars.

Some will say that it is too difficult to embark on a real program of decentralization, however, this argument is based on the assumption that important work can only be done in Ottawa.

The government can look both here and abroad for examples of decentralization.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in his spring budget of 2004 the relocation of 20,000 public servants from London to the regions of the United Kingdom And in 2003, the Norwegian government announced plans to move eight state regulatory agencies outside of its capital

Major relocation is possible all that is needed is political will.

The potential benefits of relocating government departments are enormous.

The initial, up-front costs would be recouped many times over, in many different ways:

• Such moves would reduce the need for other forms of regional development;
• At the same time, the affected departments or agencies would reduce staff turnover, and save recruitment and training costs;
• And perhaps just as important as any other factor, the Government of Canada would gain a permanent and strong presence in the affected region helping to reduce the stresses of regional alienation.

It was a pleasure to appear before your association today and I would be pleased to answer any questions.