Maurice Dumas

[Old Age Security, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister contend that his government will not touch old age pensions, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday, when this same minister refused to make any commitment on the amounts of the old age pensions and the eligibility level, leaving it up to his colleague in finance to do so, when the budget has clearly stated there will be a reform and cuts?

[Old Age Security, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In his recent budget, the Minister of Finance clearly announced old age pension reform, and I quote: "That in turn requires reform to ensure that the pension system is sustainable in the long term". Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly contradicted his colleague by saying that Ottawa would definitely not touch old age pensions.

In view of this flagrant contradiction by two senior ministers in his cabinet, would the Prime Minister confirm clearly that the old age pension reform is ready but will be put off until after the referendum so seniors will not know the scope of the cuts that await them?

[Old Age Security, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the attitude of the Minister of Finance that he is doing the same with seniors as he is doing with Canadians as a whole, that is putting off delivering the bad news until after the referendum?

[Old Age Security, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced that he would need to proceed this autumn with the review of the Canada pension plan. There is now some urgency for the government to submit a reform plan for old age pensions. That document is close to a year overdue.

What is keeping the Finance Minister from making public his government's intentions with respect to old age pensions? What does the federal government have up its sleeve for older Canadians?

[National Grandparents Day, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is my second speech in this House about a bill to declare a national grandparent's day throughout Canada. Like my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam, I also wish to salute the seniors, the grandparents sitting in the public gallery upstairs.

Bill C-259 tabled by my colleague says this:

Whereas it is recognized that grandparents have laid the foundation of our family structure and future well-being;

And Whereas it is desirable to encourage all Canadians, and particularly children and grandchildren, to remember and appreciate their grandparents;

And Whereas the people of Canada wish to honour all grandparents in acknowledgement of their contribution to Canadian society;

The bill proposes that throughout Canada, in each year, the second Sunday in September of each year shall be known as "National Grandparent's Day".

As the official opposition's representative for seniors' organizations, I noticed that my previous comments in support of a very similar bill declaring a national grandparent's day touched many seniors in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau and across Canada, including the British Columbia seniors' group of which my colleague is a member.

It is essential to recognize the place of grandparents in our society, when we see how many organizations, groups or simply themes are entitled to their own days underlining their existence and importance. Bill C-259 at last gives seniors a prominent place in keeping with the very important role they play in their grandchildren's lives.

However, to help them play this role properly, the government must provide seniors with a minimum level of financial security, thus preserving their autonomy. Our seniors' financial situation shows that we must not reduce the deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable. I refer you once again to the report by the National Advisory Council on Aging, which reveals that seniors do not enjoy high income levels.

As representative for seniors' organizations, I have always sought to ensure that the government does not penalize seniors. Incidentally, I recently participated in the debate on Bill C-54, which specifically affects seniors' pensions either through the Canada pension plan or through old age security. We in the Bloc Quebecois proposed a series of amendments aimed at protecting seniors who would otherwise be penalized by Bill C-54. Unfortunately, the government rejected them.

I suggested, for instance, that Canada Post should not have access to personal information provided to the government by beneficiaries. I also proposed an amendment that would oblige the minister to remit overpayments due to an administrative error.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois presented an amendment that would reinstate the one-year statute of limitation on overpayments by the government on old age security pensions that were not due to fraudulent intent.

The present statute is five years, which means that the government has five years to claim amounts paid in excess. In fact I spoke yesterday in the House on the subject of Bill C-54, to explain the series of amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. The bill was passed but the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, were defeated.

I support Bill C-259 because it takes into account the contribution made by grandparents to our society. However, the economic situation of seniors is something we should be mindful of every day of the year, so that they can play their role as grandparents.

We should recognize, even symbolically, the contribution of our seniors. Bill C-259 also gives us a chance to recognize their relationship with their grandchildren. We are, of course, all aware of the breakup of the traditional family.

I also spoke in the House not long ago on the subject of Bill C-232, an Act to amend the Divorce Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide that grandparents will not be required to obtain

leave of the court to apply for a temporary, permanent or amending order regarding custody of or access to the children.

Divorce always leave a bitter aftertaste, and I see it as my duty to ensure that seniors continue to enjoy the place that is theirs in our society. Personally, I am very concerned about the old age pension reform announced by the government, which will come into force in 1997.

In 1994, the government announced that a document would be produced and tabled. Production was delayed, however, and the government preferred to wait until after the referendum in Quebec. In fact, seniors in Quebec had an opportunity to discuss their future at hearings held by the Commission des aînés sur l'avenir du Québec. In the course of these consultations, we found that seniors' concerns are similar across the country. They are concerned about their social and economic situation.

Practically everywhere, people argued in favour of letting senior citizens use their experience for the benefit of the society they will pass on to their grandchildren. Bill C-259 gives seniors a decisive role and reflects our recognition of the role of seniors in our society.

In concluding, I want to say that the official opposition supports Bill C-59 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. I want to thank the hon. member on behalf of all seniors' organizations and also on behalf of all grandparents, the young and not so young, in this country for drawing attention to their role in our society.

[Village Of Oka, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, I rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Oka who met recently to discuss the catastrophic situation in their town, five years after what was referred to as the Oka crisis.

Every resident looks forward to the time when peace and calm will return to a municipality where all citizens can live together without fear, and those sentiments are shared by the vast majority of the Mohawks of Kanesatake.

The people of Oka want governments, both federal and provincial, to make a clear statement on all issues concerning aboriginal lands, so as to restore a normal social climate and public security, and to ensure that real estate values and insurance premiums revert to normal levels.

By requesting concrete political action on the part of both levels of government, the people of Oka want to recover their enjoyment of certain freedoms, a basic right that is part of the philosophy of all Quebecers and all Canadians.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, allow me, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to table petitions from the constituency of Argenteuil-Papineau, the constituency of the Prime Minster, and the constituency of many citizens of the province. These petitions contain 835 signatures and come from two groups: the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale (AFEAS), and the Association des retraités de l'enseignement du Québec (AREQ). These petitioners are opposed to the introduction of voice mail for senior citizens.

[Old Age Security Act, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I had prepared a 40 minute speech, but given the requests of our whips, I agreed to cut down my time on the floor.

I would like to speak to the House regarding Bill C-54 and I will focus on the act to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. The official opposition proposed several amendments to this bill in order to protect seniors from injustice.

First, in Motion No. 1 we proposed the following amendments. In summary, this amendment by the Bloc Quebecois aimed to keep the appeals processes for the Canada pension plan and the old age security program separate.

What was the answer we received on May 8 to this first amendment we proposed regarding Bill C-54? The Minister of Human Resources Development went on a violent, undignified and even indecent rampage, calling our amendments bizarre, incomprehensible and absurd. According to the minister, I have a twisted mind and I take a perverted pleasure in complicating the lives of seniors.

The minister wound up with the comment that our amendments were the strangest, most bizarre and most incomprehensible amendments that he has seen in a long time in the House. He also mentioned that if I had truly understood Bill C-54, I would not have proposed such absurd amendments. Unfortunately for the Minister of Human Resources Development, he confused Motion No. 2 with subclause 2 of Motion No. 1.

Bill C-54 integrates the appeals process for the Canada pension plan with that of the old age security program. On May 8, when this amendment was introduced in this House, I reported what the attorney general had said: "The two-tiered appeal process for Old Age Security permits the satisfactory settlement of the few cases there are. The process is simple, fast and informal, and cases are heard in the regions where the appellants live".

Furthermore, the auditor general openly criticized the three-tiered appeals process of the Canada pension plan. So, why propose to integrate the two appeals processes and to use the process under the Canada pension plan, which the auditor general deems to be deficient? Clearly, they are not simplifying the appeals process. In what way will this improve client services?

Lastly, the Pension Appeals Board was authorized to appoint temporary members. At the present time, someone who is not satisfied with a decision made under the Canada Assistance Plan has the right to appeal at three different levels.

First level appeals are to the Minister of Human Resources Development. Second level appeals are heard by review tribunals established under the Act. Finally, third level appeals are heard by the Pension Appeals Board. Why change an appeal process which, according to the Auditor General, works well to replace it with a more complicated one?

The Bloc Quebecois disagrees with this streamlining of appeals under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan because it is not an improvement.

Let us not forget the importance of this amendment since statistics reveal that in 1993-94, there were 23,046 first level appeals, an increase of 0.5 per cent compared to the previous year. Of that number, 83 per cent concern disability benefits. A total of 27,077 appeals were processed during those years.

On Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 I supported my colleague for Mercier since the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the provisions of Bill C-54 intended to change access to certain information since the government can increase the number of departments, agencies or even individuals that will have access to information for the purpose of implementing the acts modified by this bill. Agencies having access to information according to the previous act were: the Departments of Revenue, Finance, Supply and Services, Employment and Immigration Commission, Statistics Canada and provincial authorities.

These agencies can have access to the information as long as it deals solely with the entitlement of beneficiaries or the amount of benefits, or if their disclosure is essential to the legislation's application.

When I supported these amendments, I said that we have to be extremely careful when giving personal information on senior citizens since it could be used for other purposes. We have to protect our senior citizens against potential abuse. The government did not prove that disclosing this privileged information was essential and necessary.

I said also that governments are becoming more and more intrusive. This government has the gall to claim that it is a good thing to include Canada Post on the ground that, through the use of new techniques, it could help accelerate the processing of pension cheques.

We noticed time and time again that the government cannot deal with its own administrative problems, and we recently had the best possible example of that when some seniors had trouble getting their income supplement cheques. We cannot condone government intrusion in the private lives of senior citizens and citizens in general.

This major change, even if used in accordance with the present provisions of the Privacy Act, is an intrusion that the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept. Moreover, we proposed in Motions Nos. 5 and 6, amendments which did not seek to remove Clause 23 entirely, but to amend it. For example, they would have kept the one year delay before collecting overpayments and forced the minister to remit the debt in the cases mentioned. For example, in section 37 the one-year statute of limitation is maintained.

The government is incapable of dealing with these matters within a reasonable time frame. The abolition of this clause, which accordingly does away with the limitation or claim on the overpayment, is an obvious example of the government's loss of control.

I repeat here the remarks of the auditor general in his report to the effect that pension fund overpayments amount to between $120 million and $220 million a year. He said: "Past efforts to prevent and detect overpayments have been minimal and largely ineffective". I am quoting the auditor general's report for 1993, at page 486.

The auditor general also indicated that over 90 per cent of appeals concerned applications for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.

Does the provision that would permit the minister to stay benefits during the appeal process together with the increase in the number of unjustified appeals by the department not in fact cover up a shameful way to reduce overpayments?

Clearly, at some point or other, many old people will be faced with administrative errors by the government. They may have received money they were not entitled to, without necessarily realizing it. How can seniors repay a significant amount all of a sudden and budget accordingly?

That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed, in order to remedy this situation, that the one year limitation on overpayments that are not the result of fraudulent acts be imprescriptible so as to force the government to improve management of the program and to not unduly penalize seniors, who could have to pay back significant amounts a number of years after an error was made.

Bill C-54 provides that, in these cases, the minister may "remit". We have proposed there be no discretionary power in the above cases, to protect the interests of seniors. I have also proposed in Motion No. 12 the following amendment, which is of prime importance: "That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 38", which reads as follows:

"Where a decision is made by a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board in respect of a benefit, the Minister may stay payment of the benefit until the latest of [three dates]".

The amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is intended to not allow the government to stay payments during appeals, because these appeals are the result of the government's inability to manage these programs. I assume the Minister of Human Resources Development also finds this amendment bizarre. How do we tell seniors that they may enjoy their rights, but are not entitled to receive the money they need to live on during the proceedings?

I made a presentation on seniors' incomes when I introduced my motion on May 8. Clearly they are not rich. I conclude here with the question, why must we insist on reducing the deficit on the backs of the most disadvantaged, on the backs of seniors? I repeat my question to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Louise Beaudoin, the Quebec Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, took stock of the first nine months of federal-provincial relations since the election of the new government in Quebec. Social program reform, the Canada social transfer and the national forum on health are all examples of centralization and encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction over education, health and income security.

By closing the military college in Saint-Jean, reducing transfers to Quebec for health and education, restricting access to UI benefits-which has doubled the number of new welfare recipients Quebec must look after-and stubbornly refusing to transfer prime responsibility for job training to Quebec, the federal

government shows how little it cares about Quebecers' interests. That is flexible federalism for you.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning's Globe and Mail reported staff cuts at the CBC which are the start of further major cuts that could well change the role, nature and even the mandate of the corporation entirely.

As a result of the latest budget, the SRC and the CBC will have to cut 1,000 employees. However, Tony Manera, the former president had indicated that between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs would have to be cut in the next three years. In this context, it is therefore surprising that the Minister of Cultural Heritage continues to refuse to reveal the budget cuts he has imposed on the corporation.

We should not be surprised to discover more American television programs in CBC programming in the near future or to find ourselves witnessing the long slow demise of what was once the jewel of Quebec and Canadian culture.