Raymond Gravel

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, given this year's surplus of $10.6 billion, the government could give seniors back their dignity and still allocate $3 billion to the debt. Since the Conservatives are also indebted towards seniors, they must make the guaranteed income supplement fully retroactive to the tune of $3.1 billion, as they had promised.

What is the government waiting for to pay the debt owed to seniors?

[Seniors, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, over the past ten years, the various governments in office have put a total of $95 billion toward the debt, without prior debate in the House. Yet, over the years, in excess of $3 billion has been siphoned away from seniors. Even more despicable is the fact that the member who, when he was in opposition, was a strong and very vocal advocate for seniors, is now turning a deaf ear and is not doing anything to help those seniors who have glaring needs. The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to fully repay the seniors who were adversely affected by the poor management of the guaranteed income supplement program.

The poorest of our seniors are truly doing an incredible feat by surviving on what little money the government is giving them. It is terribly ungracious on the government's part to announce billions in surpluses, while leaving the needy to choose between getting adequate food and adequate clothing.

Seniors will remember that, and the Bloc Québécois will make sure they do.

[Old Age Security Program, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to support the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Seniors are as important to me as they are to her. This motion is in line with Bill C-490 introduced by the Bloc Québécois in December.

My Liberal colleague had some very interesting points to make. However, I find the comments of my colleague opposite, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, to be amazingly nonsensical. By “nonsensical” I mean foolish, silly, and just plain stupid.

When I heard the hon. member say that the Conservative government has been quite generous to seniors, I wondered what planet she has been on. I know that in two years the government has given an additional $18 to the guaranteed income supplement, when it knows that people are living below the poverty line. I do not see any generosity in that. When she argues that in 13 years, the Liberal government did nothing and that the Conservatives have done more in two years, I do not think it is right to justify doing more by comparing oneself to those who did nothing.

I am very pleased to speak to this motion. As I was saying earlier, it looks a lot like our bill C-490 tabled last December by the member for Alfred-Pellan. This bill follows up my tour of Quebec, in 2007, to identify the needs of the seniors of today and of the future.

Having realized that seniors have become impoverished over the past ten years, I met with several seniors' groups and associations in all parts of Quebec who shared with me their fears, needs and hopes. They spoke of the quality of life of seniors, of the causes of their poverty and of the solutions recommended to various levels of government. I also heard the opinions of seniors on Quebec society. The results are reflected in the bill that we tabled and that has four components. It is very much in keeping with the motion by my colleague for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The first component is automatic registration for the guaranteed income supplement. Why? Simply because this supplement provides additional income to low-income seniors. When we say low-income we are talking about individuals living in poverty. We know that poverty takes many forms and that thousands of seniors are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. However, they do not receive it because they do not know about it, which is also due to their poverty.

On August 23, 2001, the Toronto Star estimated that 380,000 seniors in Canada were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but were not receiving it. In Quebec, more than 80,000 people were in this situation. The reason is simple. Poor seniors often have difficulty reading and understanding forms, and the forms at the time were extremely complicated. People were also unaware that they had to apply every year. This is no longer the case thanks to Bill C-36, which was adopted last May.

There are other reasons associated with poverty as well. Poverty affects people who have never worked outside the home, who do not file income tax returns, who are aboriginal or who live in remote areas. We also think of people with poor literacy skills, people who speak neither French nor English, people who are disabled or ill and people who are homeless. There are many reasons.

If these seniors were automatically registered for the guaranteed income supplement at age 65, this problem would be eliminated. The work the Bloc Québécois has done over the past several years has drastically reduced the number of people who do not receive the guaranteed income supplement. In Quebec there are apparently still about 40,000 people who do not receive the supplement, but in 2001 there were 80,000.

The second part of our bill involves a $110 a month increase in the guaranteed income supplement. This would bring the poorest seniors up to the poverty line, as my colleague's motion says. The calculation was done in 2004, when the poverty level for a single person was set at $14,794 a year. Poor seniors who receive the maximum guaranteed income supplement are getting only $13,514 in 2007-08.

This means that that their income is $1,280 below the poverty line, or $106 per month, which we have rounded up to $110. This is not asking for much, just getting them over the poverty line. That is not too much to ask in a country like ours.

The third part of our bill concerns full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for people who have been given a raw deal under the current system. In May 2007, Bill C-36 resulted in just 11 months of retroactivity for poor seniors. That is not enough; we must do more. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party agreed to fix this problem. Now that they are in power, they do not want to talk about it. Nobody is asking for handouts here; we just want seniors to get their fair share from a system that ripped them off.

When one owes money to a person, one has a legal debt to that person. This is about justice, honesty and dignity. Just think of Mrs. Bolduc in Toronto who told a Radio-Canada reporter what it is like to live in poverty. Many seniors are in the same position as Mrs. Bolduc.

The fourth element our bill introduces is a six-month compassion period for seniors who lose their spouses. We know what kind of situation these people face. A six-month period would enable surviving spouses to recover from the grieving process and figure things out, because their benefits will automatically be reduced. This period will certainly offer a degree of security to grieving seniors.

The government's failure to help our poorest seniors is unacceptable. We have known for quite some time now that seniors are some of the poorest people in our society. Poverty affects their health, makes them feel insecure about their future and makes them even more vulnerable to those who claim to be taking care of them. Many newspapers have reported on violence against seniors and exploitation of the elderly. These people are in a very vulnerable position. It is disgusting that, despite vast budget surpluses, one government after another has failed to solve the problem raised by members of the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois supports the motion by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. That is a long name for a riding; it would be easier to call her by her name. I am asking all parliamentarians to support this motion as well as our bill, which will be debated soon in the House. It is a question of justice, fairness and dignity for all those who came before us and paved the way for us.

I would like to close with the 2006 definition of poverty by the National Council of Welfare:

—poverty is not just a lack of income; it can also be a synonym for social exclusion. When people cannot meet their basic needs, they cannot afford even simple activities. Single parents or persons with a family member who is sick or disabled often suffer from “poverty of time” as well, and have too few hours during the day to earn income, take care of others, obtain an education, have some social interaction or even get the sleep they need. This form of social exclusion and isolation can lead to other problems, such as poor health, depression and dysfunction. Poverty can quickly deprive individuals of their dignity, confidence and hope.

This often happens to our seniors who are sick and poor.

[Old Age Security Program, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques because the subject of seniors is very important to me. I, too, am here to work for seniors.

I would like my colleague to clarify two points. First, the motion specifies “single”, “widowed” and “divorced” people, but it should also include “separated” people. Perhaps these people have been forgotten because they constitute a different group.

My other question has to do with the program's operational costs mentioned in the motion:

(a) reduce the program’s operational costs by ceasing to pay benefits that subsequently have to be repaid;

How much are these operational costs estimated to be? If part (a) is rejected, then part (b) will automatically be dropped. I think it would be deplorable if funds were not redirected to the recipients of the guaranteed income supplement.

I would like some clarification on these points.

[Unborn Victims of Crime Act, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this bill. I was listening before to the speech by the NDP member for Halifax and I agree with what she said.

As a Catholic priest, I find it somewhat difficult to relate to this bill quite simply because the member who tabled it belongs to a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition, which, in my humble opinion, is a fairly extremist and fanatical group. I am pro-life, but I do not belong to that group.

In my opinion, this bill will open the door to recriminalizing women who have an abortion, and that is not a good thing. I am against abortion, but I do not believe that is how we will deal with the problem of abortion. I have always stated that we need education, support and assistance for women dealing with unwanted pregnancy. In my opinion, the problem of abortion will be solved with these types of measures and not by recriminalizing abortion. I absolutely do not want that.

When a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed and her fetus is killed at the same time, I agree completely that it is an abominable crime. It is revolting, but at the same time I believe that when the fetus is in its mother's womb, they are one being. Only when it leaves her womb does it become a child. I believe that is the Supreme Court definition of 1969.

I know that killing a pregnant woman, like any murder, is a serious matter. However, I believe it is dangerous to establish a new law that would treat the murder of the fetus and of the mother as a double murder. I believe that it is dangerous and that is not how we will put an end to abortion. Not in this way.

As I just said, it is more through education, support, love and understanding. There are any numbers of things we can do to reduce the abortion rate in this country. As long as we fail to take control of the situation and we fail to be there to help these pregnant women, who are often facing financial difficulties or problems in their relationship, until we resolve those problems, there will always be abortions. That is what is needed, rather than—through new legislation, that is Bill C-484—recriminalizing the murder of a pregnant woman.

I also mentioned that pro-life group, Campaign Life Coalition. I know that the president of the Quebec group is Luc Gagnon. That group's journal is always full of condemnations and rejections, and there is never any love or compassion in their journal. In my view, what is needed is compassion when a woman is dealing with a pregnancy caused by rape or any unwanted pregnancy. I do not feel there is any compassion within that group. I therefore oppose that pro-life group, just I oppose the pro-choice group, whose views are, in my opinion, too exaggerated, too unrealistic.

As I was saying, I think a moderate approach is needed. It is not by creating new legislation that we will successfully reduce the number of abortions and creating new committees, if we can say—

[Unborn Victims of Crime Act, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member specifically regarding his bill. Several things about this bill bother me. Consider, for example, a pregnant woman who is attacked by someone in the street who wants to steal her purse. But when the thief grabs the purse, the woman falls down and her baby dies.

Is that individual charged with theft or murder? In fact, the person intended to commit theft, not murder. Can my colleague respond to this question? I wanted to ask him another question, but it will have to wait until later.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has changed his mind and decided to go with the Bloc Québécois' proposals, he should do the same thing with the guaranteed income supplement for the thousands of seniors who have also been penalized because of his false promises and mistakes.

Will the minister grant seniors full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement and introduce poverty level indexing, or will he do as the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean did last week in Rivière-du-Loup and tell seniors that all they have to do to get their money is vote for the right party?

[Laurent McCutcheon, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Laurent McCutcheon, president of Gai Écoute and the Fondation Émergence, who has been rewarded for his achievements and his tremendous contribution to improving the lives of homosexuals. Mr. McCutcheon was awarded the 2007 rights and freedoms prize. This prestigious prize is awarded annually by Quebec's human rights and youth rights commission to a person, group or organization having demonstrated outstanding dedication in the field of human rights and freedoms.

This award highlights Laurent McCutcheon's 25 years of dedication to Gai Écoute. He understands the challenges related to homosexuality and has fought many a battle. His dedication and leadership have long been recognized by Quebec's gay and lesbian community and by Quebec society.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to congratulate Mr. McCutcheon on receiving the rights and freedoms prize. Keep up the good work, Mr. McCutcheon.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to respond to part of the question. Yes, it is scandalous. Take housing, for instance. As I travelled around Quebec, I went to Rimouski, where seniors in wheelchairs were living on the fourth floor of a building with no elevator.

We know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation records a surplus every year, so we are asking the government to increase transfers to Quebec based on the population and—

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions. Indeed, this is scandalous. An older person once said to me that the government has a long arm when the time comes to take money from our pockets, but its arm is not nearly as long when it is time to dig into its own pockets. That is one way of describing the injustice that exists. And it is true.

Considering the surplus accumulated by the government this year, the retroactivity question could easily be resolved. It would cost $3.1 billion for all of Canada, and there is a surplus of $11 billion. Thus, this problem could be resolved, especially given the growing numbers of seniors in this country. We have heard that by 2015, 28% of the population will have reached age 60.

It seems to me that we must find a place for them, especially since these people often live in insecurity; they are often disadvantaged, afraid and need help. There are growing numbers of poor seniors. This is important.

The second question had to do with the Conservatives' broken promise. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to resolve this problem, but it remains unresolved. An increase of $18 a month was given, when we know that $110 is what is needed just to reach the low income cutoff, the poverty line. This is also scandalous and is, in many ways, immoral.