Bill C-36 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act

This enactment amends the Canada Pension Plan to implement the existing full funding provision for new benefits and benefit enhancements. It also provides for their calculation, the requirements for public reporting of those costs and the integration of those costs into the process for setting the contribution rate.
It changes the contributory requirement for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan for contributors with 25 or more years of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, to require contributions in only three of the last six years in the contributory period. Other contributors will continue to have to meet the existing requirement of contributions in four of the last six years in their contributory period.
It also makes changes to the Canada Pension Plan of an administrative nature to modernize service delivery. It authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the payment of interest on amounts owing to Her Majesty under Part II of the Act. It also addresses anomalies in the Act, amends the penalty provisions and clarifies certain language used in the Act.
In addition, this enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the payment of interest on amounts owing to Her Majesty under the Act. The enactment also eliminates the ability of estates or successions to apply for income-tested benefits and ensures that sponsored immigrants are treated the same for the purpose of determining entitlements to income-tested benefits. It also corrects anomalies in the Act, amends the penalty provisions, modernizes and simplifies the application and delivery of the Old Age Security program and clarifies certain language used in the Act.

Canada Pension Plan

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi. I am taking this opportunity to wish a happy new year to my constituents in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, who elected me for a second time last year.

I am pleased to address Bill C-36. The Bloc Québécois and myself feel that this legislation includes some interesting improvements for our elderly who—and we tend to forget it all too often—built this country.

After being elected for the first time, I quickly realized how the federal government was so incredibly indifferent to the plight of the elderly, particularly the most vulnerable ones. The government tends to be more receptive to the demands of groups that are more powerful, more vocal and more organized. Therefore, the most vulnerable and isolated seniors in our society are not a real priority for the federal government. This is one of the reasons why the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act were flawed in a number of ways. Fortunately, Bill C-36 seeks to correct several of these flaws, particularly as regards the guaranteed income supplement.

We know that until the Bloc Québécois began to work on it in recent years, this guaranteed income supplement was anything but guaranteed; it was pretty hit-and-miss. One had to be unusually motivated and prepared to battle in order to get it. In 2001, the Bloc Québécois made sure that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities studied the guaranteed income supplement file. Again it was the Bloc Québécois that organized a huge operation to identify the seniors who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but who were being kept in the dark.

In 2001, it was estimated that over 68,000 seniors in Quebec and 270,000 seniors in Canada were not receiving the guaranteed income supplement although they were entitled to it. The parliamentary committee looking at the question pointed the finger at administrative complexity, ineffective, inadequate and poorly targeted advertising, over-zealous public administrators and, more generally, the conflict of interest caused by the astronomical sums saved by the federal government at the expense of the most disadvantaged.

Those are the reasons why so many seniors were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. Between 1993 and 2001, close to $3.2 billion in all of Canada, including $800 million in Quebec alone, was not paid to seniors who were entitled to it and was reallocated to other purposes by the government of Mr. Chrétien, the member for LaSalle—Émard and the leader of the official opposition—I cannot mention their names.

Misappropriation of employment insurance, misappropriation of support for seniors and dumping of problems onto the provinces, these are the three pillars on which Ottawa’s zero deficit and debt reduction were built. What an edifying and inspiring example for future generations.

Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, close to 42,000 of these people were discovered in Quebec alone. This effort accounts for some $190 million more that has been redistributed to the people who need it most. In 2004, when I was elected to the House, I quickly saw that the main problems of access to the guaranteed income supplement involved lack of familiarity with the program and the hugely complex application form.

I visited seniors' centres in my riding and met dozens of struggling individuals, in order to tell them about the guaranteed income supplement. Those few thousand additional dollars were enough to relieve much misery. I can guarantee that. However, once individuals are identified, not everything is solved. The question of renewal also posed a problem. For many seniors, especially those with less education, having to fill out complicated forms year after year constitutes a heavy burden.

Many of our seniors did not have the opportunity to learn to read and write. They have managed to get through life despite these limitations, but they are very discouraged by the complicated forms found on the Internet.

In recent years, I have been very happy to see that these forms have been simplified and that, finally, Bill C-36 introduces an automatic renewal system. It was about time.

That said, Bill C-36 introduces another important element, namely, the adjustment of the guaranteed income supplement if there is a drastic drop in the recipient's income.

Last year, one of my constituents came to my office. This gentleman, who worked part time in a sawmill, saw his hours drop from about a dozen hours a week to none at all. At that time, he had to wait eight months for his guaranteed income supplement to be adjusted to his new situation, which had a direct impact on his income and his quality of life, and caused him considerable stress that he could have done without.

I would also like to be very clear on one point. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill because it is a step in the right direction. However, I would like to see the government take the next step and launch an information and awareness campaign about the guaranteed income supplement. Older people who are eligible for this benefit but who are still not receiving it should automatically have access to it.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois will continue to fight for full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for everyone who has the right to it.

For years, the federal government withheld much-needed money from our poorest seniors. By failing to ensure awareness of this program and by producing forms that were not well-suited to older people, the federal government made things even worse for the most vulnerable members of our society.

A total of $3.2 billion was not distributed to the people who contributed so much to building this country. This is a flagrant violation of two major principles: inter-generational equality and the gratitude these builders deserve.

The only way to correct this situation and make amends is to give these older people full retroactivity. Full retroactivity. For the Bloc Québécois and for me, this is about honour and justice.

It is upsetting to learn that for all these years, both Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed a profoundly unjust and cruel situation to persist.

Yes, Bill C-36 will bring about some progress. Still, we will continue the fight to ensure that the federal government gives the people who made Quebec and Canada the nations they are today what they deserve.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments. We serve together on the parliamentary committee on the status of women. I want to put a question to the member.

Bill C-36, like many other pieces of legislation that have come before the House, lacks a gender-based analysis. We know that women are disproportionately impacted by decisions that governments of any political stripe make.

Could the member specifically comment on the fact that women are poorer and that women are disproportionately in receipt of old age security because they do not have the kind of income that would mean they would have private pensions? Could she comment on what a gender-based analysis would mean to a bill like Bill C-36?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

It is true that women who today are 70 or 72 years old were never in the labour market 50 or 60 years ago. Many of these women were farmers' wives and thus had no income.

Today, according to Statistics Canada, women represent 52% of the population. Statistically speaking, as women age they become increasingly poor. Women live to the age of 82 or 85 and these women are poor. They are not in the habit of looking for information because they had no money prior to that point. They reach the age of 65 and they receive a pitiful pension. Furthermore, these individuals feel rich because the meagre amount of $450 per month is sufficient given that they had nothing before. Yet, we must explain to them that they are entitled to a guaranteed income supplement in order for them to have a certain quality of life, and not in an attempt to manage poverty, which is not self-evident.

For these reasons this bill must be adopted in order to help these women, especially these women and these men who built this country and who brought up those sitting here today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's views about an issue that has been raised many times by the Bloc Québécois and something that I know was of great interest particularly to a former member who is no longer with us in the House of Commons. It deals with the guaranteed income supplement, and the fact that 300,000 Canadians were eligible for this guaranteed income supplement. The government knew they were eligible, but chose not to tell them and never did pay them.

In cooperation with the Bloc and NDP, when we finally forced the Liberal government to reinstate the guaranteed income supplement to Canadians, it only agreed to retroactivity for 11 months instead of the full reinstatement. Can the member explain or help enlighten us by what cruel logic the Liberals would decide they would only reimburse people for 11 months of what they owned them whereas if people owed taxes from five years ago, the government would go back retroactively until time began to get back taxes? Could she enlighten us, please?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the answer to the member's question, but I represent the Bloc Québécois and I do not have the Liberal mindset. I am therefore unable to explain why these people are trying to hold money back from those it is owed to. If you want to know why they did not agree to retroactivity, I suggest you ask them. If I had my way, this would all have been resolved a long time ago.

Looking at the new government, while the Conservatives keep blaming the previous government, the fact is that their party has been in office for a year. Where I come from, new means a short time, not a year and a half. It is their role now to form the government and, as such, to give seniors what they are owed. They should stop blaming the previous government. The Conservatives ought to play their role properly and pay these people their guaranteed income supplement retroactively.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-36 concerning the guaranteed income supplement in particular. Actually, I have had to deal with this in my own riding because some people did not even know it existed. Some older people applied for it but after a year still had not received it. We had to help these people for several months. There are still people in my riding, though, who have not yet received the guaranteed income supplement.

It is important, therefore, to implement this legislation so that the government realizes that this guaranteed income is fair and equitable for everyone entitled to it.

The guaranteed income supplement report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in December 2001. Unfortunately, it is still pertinent after five years of Liberal rule during which nothing was done to implement it. The Conservatives have been in power for one year and only now are they starting to think about it. This is a serious problem that should be corrected as soon as possible.

The committee provided an interesting overview of the situation, which we should review today along with the necessary solutions. The Department of Human Resources and Social Development administers three income-maintenance programs for seniors, namely the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada pension plan. We are going to focus on the one that is closest to us.

The guaranteed income supplement was designed to provide an additional benefit to low-income retired people residing in Canada. The money is added to the old age security pension. I did mean low-income people. I am very close to some people who are having difficulty. It would be only natural for us to help all low-income people so that they can finish their lives in a dignified, equitable way.

The problem is that people now have to apply every year. These renewals are usually made when eligible people file their income tax returns. This is a source of grave injustices, however, because many people do not file income tax returns or are illiterate and have difficulty understanding what needs to be done to get the supplement.

It has been estimated that in the past, 15% of seniors used food banks and never received the guaranteed income supplement. These less fortunate people never received this supplement. Imagine how important an income supplement is to the survival of someone who uses a food bank.

The question is simple. Why do so many people not apply for the guaranteed income supplement, which could be of great help and perhaps even necessary? Filling out an application is not easy for a person with an inadequate level of literacy. The current government is cutting literacy programs and will create even more illiterate seniors. This system absolutely needs to be made as simple as possible, unless we can teach people to read and write or provide them with other ways to obtain this supplement.

Some will say that people can consult the Web site. Have you ever seen a food bank user able to use the Internet at that age? They are not familiar with this new technology.

Physical or mental health problems, physical limitations and language barriers have deprived a number of people of significant amounts of money. That is why so many people did not receive the guaranteed income supplement to which they were entitled.

It makes us wonder who makes up the client base. Who are these people that did not receive the supplement? They are people who never worked outside the home, people who did not file income tax returns, aboriginals, residents of remote communities, poorly educated individuals, who do not read or speak either of the official languages, or people who are disabled, sick or homeless. I want to emphasize that, because there is a growing number of homeless people over the age of 65.

During my tour of Quebec last year, I met homeless people who were 70, 75, 80. These people are increasingly being kicked out of their homes. Since they have no fixed address, they cannot receive the minimum required to live a decent life.

One thing stood out to the committee addressing this issue: the fact that Human Resources and Social Development Canada was aware of the under-subscription to the guaranteed income supplement. This has been a problem since at least 1993. What did the Liberal government do about it at the time? It did nothing, even though it knew about the problem.

The solution to this problem is to take action to help people directly. That is important.

Consequently, the Bloc is also proposing and recommending that the committee look at requiring the government to pay full retroactive guaranteed income supplement benefits, rather than a maximum of 11 months, as the legislation provides. This would mean a retroactive payment covering all eligibility periods.

How can the government have a double standard, requiring taxpayers to retroactively pay long overdue sums of money, yet refusing to do the same when it owes them money? It makes no sense. It is unethical and unfair. It is truly immoral.

The Bloc Québécois will also make sure that the amendments to the current legislation do not restrict eligibility. The guaranteed income supplement should be available to everyone who needs it. The Bloc Québécois will ask the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner to testify about expanding the group of third parties to whom personal contribution information could be provided. Because there are people who do not understand, others must ask questions on their behalf.

The Bloc Québécois will continue the fight it began long ago so that the federal government—we could even talk about the two successive governments—ensures that all seniors who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement can receive it easily and on an ongoing basis.

There is also the matter of interest charged on overpayments. The Bloc Québécois will make sure that this bill treats all taxpayers equally and that there are no abuses by the government.

Lastly, the Bloc will make sure that the limitation period for claims of government overpayments is proportional to the period during which individuals can claim amounts owing. The government is not proposing full retroactivity, yet it seems to do away with any limitation period when it comes to the money it is owed. As I said earlier, this is true especially of income tax. It could even be said that the government has a double standard: it acts one way when it is owed money and another way when it has to pay money to people who have been paying their taxes for years.

It is a question of ethics and setting a good example. The government should hold itself to the same rules as others. I would also like to say that the guaranteed income supplement should be available to everyone who needs it and that the application process should be simpler, so that people are not required to apply every year. It must be paid on an ongoing basis.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about retroactivity and how the provinces and federal income support programs handle it. British Columbia does not allow it. Its senior supplement is for one year. The widow's pension is for one year in Alberta. Saskatchewan has an income plan for one year. Manitoba has a guaranteed annual income for one year. Ontario's drug plan program is for one year. Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia all do not have retroactivity payments when it is a public program such as this one.

Is there a program in any jurisdiction that we could compare this to so that we could understand how 11 months would not be generous enough? Already the guaranteed income supplement allows an 11 month retroactivity clause. Could the member tell us about a program in any jurisdiction that allows retroactivity and how it works?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. My hon. colleague opposite would like me to provide some examples from Canada. It is true that in Canada, this is not a very common approach. However, this approach exists elsewhere, in Europe in particular. In Europe, when the government owes the individual something, it pays in full. It treats others as it would have others treat it.

I think we should apply this same reasoning. We cannot resolve an injustice by creating another one. Just because some provinces have injustices like that does not mean the federal government should follow suit and carry on in this way.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the aging population in our country is one of the biggest, most underappreciated challenges to public policy making today. As we look to the future we will have three to four workers for every retired person. Some 20 or 30 years ago it was seven to eight workers for every retired person.

I want to ask two questions. The first question deals with the issue of those seniors who live in quiet desperation because they simply do not have enough money to make ends meet and with medical and other challenges they have they will need a supplement. Would the member's colleagues support a low income supplement of up to $2,000 per year for those who make less than $20,000? Second, would his party like to work with many of us to abolish the mandatory retirement age of 65?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We are currently in the process of creating fear about the fact that there will be more seniors than before. Yes, it is true that we have never on Earth experienced this situation in our capitalist system.

We have to remember one thing: for every income received in society, no matter how small, this income is multiplied by three in terms of spending. It is not just a loss: it gets people working, employs everyone and fuels the economy. Thinking that only producers of goods and services fuel the economy is a very bad way of seeing things. That was the argument used in Ontario when a number of teachers were laid off. It soon became clear that the economy was taking a hit because the money the government used to pay the teachers was money that multiplied by three.

We do not need to fear population aging. Generally speaking, people are aging with a lot more money than before and will be able to take care of themselves. For those who will not be able to do so, for the less fortunate, we have to ensure that the measures are in place. Those measures will be economically viable and will add to our economy.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. I am also very happy to have the opportunity to rise in the House on the first day we are back. I hope all of my colleagues had an enjoyable holiday season. I look forward to catching up with them over the coming days.

I look forward to continuing my work on behalf of the riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. Last year I raised several of my riding's concerns on the floor of the House and I continue to work with my caucus colleagues on such important subjects as the environment, the Kelowna accord and criminal justice issues.

The bill before us today aims to make a number of changes to the Canada pension plan and Old Age Security Act. The bill will implement the existing full funding provision for new benefits and benefit enhancements. It also provides for public reporting of costs and integration of those costs into the process for setting the contribution rate. Any new benefits or enhancements to existing ones will have to be met with an appropriate increase in premiums.

Bill C-36 changes the contributory requirements for disability benefits under the Canada pension plan for contributors with 25 or more years of contributions to the plan to require contributions in only three of the last six years in the contributory period. In addition, this enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to authorize the governor in council to make regulations respecting the payment of interest on amounts owing. The enactment also eliminates the ability of estates or successions to apply for income tested benefits and ensures that sponsored immigrants are treated the same for the purpose of determining entitlements to income tested benefits.

On the whole, this is a bill that I will be able to support. I welcome the increase in accessibility to disability benefits as stipulated in this bill. I am pleased that sponsored immigrants will be treated the same for the determination of benefits.

A rich industrialized country like ours must ensure excellent standards of living for senior Canadians so that they can live out their golden years in dignity and comfort. Seniors in Canada have worked all of their lives and they should not have to worry about financial issues when they retire.

The Liberal Party is the party of the Canada pension plan and old age security. Our party continues to recognize the duty we owe to those Canadians who have worked for so many years and made so many valuable contributions to our communities.

Liberal policies in the 1990s returned the Canada pension plan funds to stability and ensured a reliable public pension system for 75 years to come, the longest we can possibly forecast. The Canada pension plan fund currently stands at over $100 billion. It is safe for generations to come. This is no small feat as just a few years ago many were predicting its demise. Due to good management by the previous government, future generations of Canadians can depend on the Canada pension plan as previous generations have for four decades.

As a member of Parliament I often meet with seniors in my riding. Seniors in Oak Ridges—Markham are worried about their pensions, savings, health care and day to day living issues. Unfortunately, many seniors in Canada are nervous about the policies of the Conservative government. I wish to explore these areas of concern.

The first is an issue with which the House is very familiar and that is rural mail delivery. In October the House unanimously supported my motion to have rural mail delivery restored. Losing one's mailbox delivery is inconvenient for anyone, but it is especially hard on the elderly. Elderly Canadians rely on mail delivery for communicating with friends and family and for receiving their pension cheques and other important material. Elderly Canadians were disproportionately affected by the cessation of rural mail delivery.

I am pleased that the government has directed Canada Post to reinstate this unique mode of delivery. The minister has set a timeline of an additional 18 months before delivery is back. It has already been 12 months since my constituents lost rural mailbox delivery. This is much too long a period for elderly Canadians to wait.

The second matter I wish to raise this afternoon that has greatly concerned seniors is the government's income trust decision on October 31. The decision to tax income trusts wiped out more than $25 billion in savings overnight and reversed a key Conservative campaign promise. Many seniors invested their money based on this promise and their faith in the Conservatives cost them thousands of dollars of their hard-earned savings. This kind of move really hurt the trust and confidence seniors have in the government. Many do not believe that the government has their interests at heart.

The third Conservative policy that is of concern regards what this bill fundamentally involves and that is the Canada pension plan. The Conservatives cannot claim to be the defenders of a sound public pension system. The Minister of Finance launched an attack on vital Canada pension plan funds with his net debt goal announced last fall. It is unwise and potentially dangerous to tie the Canada pension plan account to the national debt.

I fully support reducing Canada's national debt. Reducing the debt frees up interest payments and allows us to make important investments in Canada's social safety net and to decrease taxes and to make sure that Canadians are able to enjoy more of their hard-earned dollars. That being said, I do not believe that Canada pension plan funds should be used to lower the national debt.

The net debt announcement attaches Canada pension plan funds, the contributions of taxpayers, to our national debt to artificially balance the books. This is another attack on the security of pensioners. That money is not for debt repayment or future collateral to borrow funds. It is for pension payments. Future payments from the Canada pension plan fund represent a massive liability on the fund, a liability that was not considered by the minister in his net debt policy move.

The previous Liberal government reduced the debt, lowered taxes and ensured the long term sustainability of the Canada pension plan. Why is the Minister of Finance so determined to attack the Canada pension plan? Why does he want to use it for ends for which it was not intended? A balanced approach ensures the survival and sustainability of taxpayers' pensions while reducing taxes and investing in the priorities of Canadians.

I am pleased that we have Bill C-36 in front of us. It allows us an opportunity to debate and to discuss the overall theme of pensions. I welcome what the government intends to do in this bill, but it must remain mindful of its responsibilities toward Canadian seniors. This means ensuring they have a decent quality of life, have access to sound investments over which promises are not broken, and can fully depend on all pension plans.

I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues and following this bill as it makes its way through Parliament.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed much of the speech by the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, but to do justice to the debate on Bill C-36, we need to start from the same base level of historical accuracy and information.

I noted that the member for Oak Ridges—Markham said it was the Liberal Party that created the old age security system as we know it today. In actual fact, I would point out that in 1926 it was the member for Winnipeg Centre at the time, the founder and first leader of the CCF, J.S. Woodsworth, who went to the minority Liberal prime minister of the day, William Lyon Mackenzie King, and cut a deal with him that the CCF would support the Liberal government if it finally yielded to its demands and introduced some measure of old age security.

The member for Winnipeg Centre at the time was smart enough to get that in writing. A letter exists today in the archives of the New Democratic Party. Kicking and screaming, the Liberals were forced to introduce some measure of old age security for seniors back in 1926. My colleague, the member for Saint Boniface, remembers that; apparently, he is older than I thought he was.

In actual fact, something that he might remember is that in 1942 the hon. Stanley Knowles took the place of J.S. Woodsworth as the member for Winnipeg Centre. Stanley Knowles was widely agreed to be the father of the Canadian pension system because he dedicated his career from 1942 to 1966 fighting and struggling to get the old age security Canada pension plan that we know today introduced by a Liberal minority government under Lester Pearson at that time.

It was Stanley Knowles who finally levered the Liberals into acting like Liberals in introducing the Canada pension plan. Then he spent the rest of his career, from 1966 to 1984 when he suffered a stroke, trying to get the pension plan indexed to inflation, another huge victory for Stanley Knowles and the party that I represent.

It is disingenuous, if not revisionist, to say that the Liberal Party was responsible for the introduction of the old age security system, the guaranteed income supplement or the Canada pension plan. It was those two great men who represented the riding that I am honoured to represent now whom we can thank for that.

I believe my colleague, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, is too good a member of Parliament to believe the speech he was given to read in the House today. I honestly believe, at least now that he has been enlightened as to the history and origins of our old age security system, that he may want to revise his comments.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good ideas come from everywhere. Good governments are not around every day. We saw that in the last Parliament when the New Democrats tried to take credit for what the good Liberal government had done at the time. It takes a smart Liberal government to implement the good ideas that come from within the House.

I may not be as old as I look, but I am definitely not as old as the member across the floor to remember all the policies that were brought in by the NDP. However, I remember that there has never been an NDP government in Canada to implement any sort of policies.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking for my colleagues, we are all very happy that the hon. member is back again to faithfully represent his constituents in the House.

Could the member comment on the fact that seniors' issues are being neglected by the government and the fact that the Liberal government in the 1990s did something that very few other western countries had done, and that was to put pension stability first and foremost, successfully putting our public pensions on a firm fiscal footing? That has not been done, to my knowledge, by any other western nation. Our former finance minister deserves a great deal of credibility for that.

Does the member not think that seniors' issues, in particular health care, is being utterly neglected by the government? In fact, it has abrogated its responsibility to deal with that, which is the number one issue affecting Canadians from coast to coast. Poll after poll show that health care is the number one issue affecting Canadians. Yet since the government has come into power it has not, to my knowledge, introduced one single innovative series of solutions. Nor has the government or the Minister of Health called together his provincial counterparts to work together to put our public health care system on firm financial and stable ground.

Does my hon. colleague not think the government should get with the program and start putting health care at the top of its list of priorities?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the first issue of the viability of the Canada pension plan, I was in private business in the nineties. I had clients come into my office to discuss the Canada pension plan. They were aware that the Canada pension plan would not be around to serve them, let alone their children.

I was not privileged to be in the House at the time and I do not know what the discussions were, but I can tell the House that on the streets in Canada the word was that the Liberal government at the time had fixed the problem of the Canada pension plan for many years. I saw that and heard it from many Canadians across the region.

In terms of the health care issue, I would agree with my colleague that the Conservatives have been unable to tackle the one issue that was put forth initially in its platform, and that was the wait times. They have been unable to gather the first ministers of health, provincial and territorial, to give them some kind of direction and to demand some kind of a timeline to fix the wait times within Canada.