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… read more

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.

read less

Canada Pension Plan

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place today to speak to Bill C-36. I should let you and members of this place know that I am pinch-hitting for my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who is storm stayed in the bowels of Pearson airport with many of our other colleagues.

In any event, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill. I say it is important because Canadians, particularly seniors, look to our excellent public pension plan for the income security they need and deserve in their retirement years.

It is important for Canada's new government as well. This legislation is part of the commitments we made to Canadians during the last election.

Delivering on that commitment is a way in which we reinforce the trust Canadians have in their government. This is an important change. Canadians are happy to have a government that is following up on what it promised by getting it done.

This bill is also important because it strengthens the public's faith in the government's capacity to serve as a good steward of the Canada pension plan and the old age security program.

Canada's population is aging at an unprecedented rate. The number of seniors is expected to double in the next few decades. It has been urgent for some time that governments develop the policies, programs and services that will meet the evolving needs of seniors, both for today and in the future.

Our government, through Bill C-36, is doing just that. We introduced a number of important amendments to the old age security and the Canada pension plan. At this stage of the bill, it is important to acknowledge the progress we have made.

While this government and the Prime Minister have shown tremendous leadership in delivering what we promised, I am pleased to acknowledge the cooperation of all parties in providing input on the bill before us today. I want to thank each member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for their excellent work and collaboration in advancing this bill. While there were some proposals that did not make it into the bill, we are all better informed by the contributions of the members for Chambly—Borduas and Hamilton Mountain.

Ultimately, the bill we have before us benefits Canadian seniors and long term contributors applying for CPP disability. I think they will pleased with the collegial work that took place on their behalf.

I was watching the news on Tuesday night, and in fact, right after the committee's consideration of Bill C-36. There was a segment on the latest Statistics Canada report entitled “A Portrait of Seniors in Canada”. The news story was very positive. Seniors in Canada today are healthier. They are living longer. They are much more active. Many are exercising three or four times a week. And seniors well into their seventies want to keep working.

Seniors have a powerful voice, and this government is listening. What resonates with me is their strong belief in remaining able and active members of Canadian society. I was so proud when at the end of the news report a man said, “I have my old age pension and I have my Canada pension plan...what more do I need?”

We as parliamentarians should not rest on our laurels. We have a responsibility to ensure our pension programs remain stable, sustainable and generous. I believe, and I think members of this House would agree, that we are accomplishing exactly that through this bill.

This bill comes from Canadians. They were the ones who, through their letters, their emails, their meetings with us and their organizations, made a point of saying that they needed these changes. They are changes that will make a difference in their lives, changes that will alleviate some of their frustration and changes that recognize their unique circumstances. They are changes that make sense to all members of Canadian society and treat them all fairly while ensuring that we maintain their trust in their public pensions by remaining fiscally responsible, transparent, and accountable, accountable to them, the seniors of this country.

Our public pension system is something we can rightly take pride in. It plays a vital role in ensuring the economic well-being of millions of Canadians. Public pensions deliver over $54 billion to Canadian seniors each year.

We are proud of the fact that our pension system has been an important part in dramatically reducing the level of poverty among seniors. In 1980, almost 21% of seniors lived on low incomes. Today that number has dropped to less than 6%. Like our health care system, our public pension programs are part of the Canadian way of life. They are defining features that we all cherish.

This bill will improve the delivery of pension benefits for seniors and enhance eligibility for Canadian pension plan disability benefits for long term contributors to the plan. Frankly, it will improve access.

My biggest sense of pride as a parliamentarian, and I am sure this sentiment is shared by all parliamentarians, comes from participating in a democratic process whose end result makes a meaningful difference in the lives of Canadians. These changes go a long way to doing just that.

In particular, the proposed lifetime application process for the guaranteed income supplement means that seniors will never have to reapply for the benefit each time their income increases or decreases. This will greatly ease the frustration of certain seniors and will ensure that those who file their income taxes will receive their benefit in a timely manner.

When a person applies for his or her old age security pension or Canada pension plan, that person is establishing a relationship with us that will last for the rest of his or her life. Expanding the group of third persons who can assist seniors with their pension benefits means that extended family members will be able to play a more active role and assist their loved ones whose first language is not English or French or who may have trouble reading or writing. I think seniors will very much welcome this change.

However, easing eligibility rules for long term Canada pension plan contributors will assist thousands of individuals to qualify for disability benefits in future years. This means that applicants with a long history of attachment to the labour force who become severely disabled can count on CPP disability to be there when they need support. I am particularly pleased that this important change is a result of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration.

Clearly, we always need to need to do more. I want to thank my colleagues and the witnesses who appeared before committee, who offered excellent suggestions on ways in which to improve our outreach activities and who acknowledged that legislative changes only go so far. There is clearly a responsibility, aside from our legislation, to get the word out to explain our pension programs and to work closely alongside community groups.

Seniors are valued members of our society. They are the reason we enjoy our country as we know it today. After their lifetime of hard work, we want to ensure that seniors can continue to have a good quality of life without having to constantly worry about their financial security. They deserve our utmost respect and consideration. We have an obligation to ensure that public pensions respect their needs.

Ultimately, I think this bill goes a long way in effecting the kinds of changes that seniors need and have asked for. I am grateful to all members for their support in moving forward on this bill expeditiously.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for outlining Bill C-36. However, he did touch on the issue of Canada pension plan disability. I wonder if he shares the same frustration that we have had as members of Parliament when constituents come to us looking for help with their CPP disability.

Virtually everybody who applies for CPP disability gets turned down on the initial adjudication, no matter what the merits of their case would be. It is only on appeal, and usually on appeal with the help of their member of Parliament, that we ever break through this barrier, this complete wall that has been put up in terms of access to CPP.

I do not say this as a criticism for the current government. This has been the case for a decade or more. Somebody, somewhere within Canada pension plan disability, sent a memo around to the adjudicators saying to deny every claim and that if applicants want to come back and appeal, maybe they will consider the merits of it then. I defy anyone to show me a single Canada pension plan disability claim that has ever been granted on initial application. It does not exist.

I would like to know what specifically the government could do about this or what it even may be doing in Bill C-36. If there is some progress to be announced in association with the eligibility for CPP disability within Bill C-36, I would like to hear about it.

Also, briefly, would he not agree that at this point in regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board it is time for beneficiary representation on that board?

An 11-person board now controls investment worth $140 billion on behalf of Canadians and we have no representation on the board. It is made up of patronage appointments, largely, people who have no particular experience with investment banking. In fact, one of those 11 people is the Liberal that I beat in the 1997 election. His soft landing was to get put on this new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. He was a history teacher.

I wonder if there is not some interest in putting a labour representative, a beneficiary representative, somebody to represent the Canadian public, on this all important investment board that is investing our money.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre is storm stayed in Ottawa with the rest of us until we try to make it out tonight.

My friend and colleague raises two important points. One is about the level of frustration that many seniors feel when they apply for CPP benefits. Most seniors with whom I have spoken have gone through the same frustration levels of applying, being denied, appealing and finally getting their benefits.

Something we, as a government, have been trying to achieve since we were elected is to streamline government services. Quite frankly, we are a government that believes in leaner, meaner, more efficient governments. I wish we could this overnight but we cannot. However, I think over time we will be able to streamline some of the processes of government and ease the frustrations and access to benefits that most seniors richly deserve. We will be working hard on that.

I would point out to my friend and colleague from Winnipeg Centre that in our latest cabinet shuffle we announced that there would be a minister responsible for seniors. The government House leader in the Senate has now been appointed the minister responsible for seniors. I know she is taking an active role in the files to benefit seniors on every level. This will be one of the areas that she will be investigating. My commitment to my friend is that I will be speaking with the minister responsible to see if we can giddy-up the process and streamline it as quickly as possible.

The other point my friend makes concerns the investment board itself and the patronage appointments that have been predominant on that board and other boards within our country over the past decade or two. I do not believe that is something that we should ignore.

As my friend knows, having worked with me on the legislative committee on Bill C-2, the accountability act, appointments to all boards and commissions must be made on merit. We felt very strongly about that when we developed the context of Bill C-2, the accountability act. I know it is a file that my friend is very familiar with because he played an integral role in getting many components, including the merit based component of boards and commissions and the appointment of a commissioner to oversee these appointments, into the bill itself.

I can assure my friend and colleague that we will be ensuring in future as we go forward, once various aspects of Bill C-2 have received royal assent and come into force, that appointments for all boards and commissions will be based on a go forward basis on competency and merit and not on patronage.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know our seniors are an integral part of our communities. Could the member please comment on what he and the committee feel are the strongest points in this bill to help seniors live better lives?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the thing all Canadians need to realize is that the bill was a result of consultation with seniors. Seniors themselves were the ones who encouraged us and members of the committee to enact the changes that we see before us in Bill C-36.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, not all of their proposals are contained in this bill but a majority of them are. The primary benefit is to streamline the benefits that seniors will receive. It has been for too long a very convoluted and complicated process.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre earlier mentioned the frustrations that many seniors feel and experience when applying for benefits. The primary purpose of the bill is to streamline the process and the ability for seniors to receive those benefits they richly deserve.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments regarding patronage and our mutual interest in putting an end to patronage but how does he explain the fact that we do not have a public appointments commission in place and up and running at this point in time after the good work we all did on the Federal Accountability Act which was given royal assent on December 12?

We have now learned, from the budgets that were just circulated, that the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat has been up and running since April 21 of last year with an executive director, salaries, a budget, administration officers and a physical infrastructure. However, it has been doing everything but vetting patronage appointments. In fact, officials have been running off to Europe. They have only written one report. With a budget of $2 million, the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat has only produced one report. It actually gave advice to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to not use merit as the appointment consideration for the IRB but to appoint whoever the government wanted. The leadership of the IRB was so offended that they tendered their resignation.

If we are concerned about the Public Appointments Commission and appointing based on merit, how does he explain that we have no commissioner and no board of commissioners but we do have the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat burning up public money and doing nothing but generating one nuisance report that has caused us all embarrassment?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to a brief period in history to ensure all Canadians are aware of what the government tried to do initially. It tried to establish a director of appointments. We had put forward the name of an extremely qualified individual by the name of Gwyn Morgan. He is the executive who most Canadian businesses have looked to as the leader in terms of managerial experience, fairness and competency. He was lauded from coast to coast to coast by editorial boards as probably being the finest possible appointment to this position.

What happened? It went to committee and members of the opposition, including members of the NDP, who my colleague represents, turfed him. What was the reason? It was nothing more than political partisanship, gamesmanship. They denied Canadians the right to have one of the most qualified individuals in the country head up a commission to make appointments to boards and commissions based on merit and competency. It was that member and his party, as well as other members of the opposition, who turfed Mr. Morgan. They said that they did not want him.

How can the member stand in this place and accuse us of not bringing forward changes, which we both want to see, when in fact it was his own party, among others, who stopped the appointment process from going forward, stopped the commission and the commissioner who we wanted to appoint from doing the job that we wanted on behalf of all Canadians?

I have great respect for my colleague but this, quite frankly, is the height of hypocrisy to stand in this place and complain about a function that could have been established by now if it were not for the actions of his party and other opposition parties.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems unfortunate this morning that we came here with great intent to speak to Bill C-36, with the primary purpose of improving the lives of pensioners, those Canadians who have been unfortunate to receive or be a victim of disabilities and yet the parliamentary secretary introduces into this debate discussion on political appointments.

He seems to think that the great purists are on his side of the House but I am sure if Canadians were to review the appointments that his party has made, even the reference to his recent person, there certainly are political affiliations with most of those appointments.

However, today we are talking about Bill C-36. We know that every day, workers contribute to a healthy public sector and to private sector success. What they expect in return from our governments and within society is that their efforts will be respected and rewarded, both now and in later life.

In 2021, Canadian seniors over the age of 65 will constitute approximately 18% of our population. That compares to the year 2000 when seniors were only about 12.5% of the population of Canada. We do have a serious problem with demographics and, hopefully, as our country grows, we will see more new Canadians, larger Canadian families and the fact that we can maintain the demographics that are needed for a good society.

Today the federal government is addressing key issues affecting older workers and tomorrow's seniors. The income security of future retirees must be protected by good, sound public pension plans. I am proud to say that to address the evolving needs of Canada's seniors, the Liberal government made significant investments to ensure this over the last number of years. In fact, in 1997 the government restructured the Canada pension plan to meet the increased demands of an aging population to ensure its future sustainability and to stabilize contribution rates. Experts were called in and they determined that changes were needed to make the Canada pension plan sustainable for at least the next 75 years.

Those reforms were carried out by our government at the time and they made Canada one of only three countries in the world that offered a public pension plan that was sound and would be available into the far future.

As a government, we put our wallet, our money, the finances of this country, into this plan. We invested more than $28.5 billion into old age supplements and guaranteed income supplements on a yearly basis. We pledged to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors by some $36 per month for single seniors and $58 per month for couples. This was a promised $2.7 billion investment that directly benefited some 1.6 million Canadian seniors.

As a government, we also committed more than $2 billion annually in direct tax credits, such as the old age credit and the pension income credit. As Liberals, we also created a new employment insurance benefit, the compassionate care program, which allows family members to take time off work to provide care for seriously ill loved ones without suffering sudden income or job losses.

Also, it is probably interesting to note that in terms of our EI legislation, the member for Sydney—Victoria has a private member's bill that would enable those who become sick or are off work for long periods of time because of sickness, to draw EI benefits for more than the 15 weeks allowed at present.

As well, under the new horizons program, we offered funding for community projects to reach out to valuable seniors and to keep seniors active in their communities.

As a Liberal government, our commitment to seniors could not be clearer. We felt that seniors were a very important part of our group and that they must be paid the proper respects for the efforts that they make and have made on behalf of all Canadians.

Income security is just that, security for seniors. I join today to make every effort to ensure that all eligible Canadians receive their benefits in a timely and efficient manner.

As a party and as a member of Parliament, I am very pleased to support Bill C-36 and its provisions for simplifying access and a better delivery of benefits to seniors. Working Canadians need government action to ensure that every citizen has the right to retire with dignity, comfort and enjoyment.

Today's seniors deserve the best care we can give to them with unqualified financial security. Our party has always worked in that regard. We strongly support Bill C-36. Hopefully, we can proceed with the legislation and have it made the law of our country.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, so I am surprised that nobody has asked the other members who have been talking about Bill C-36 any questions. It will give some of our seniors a better future while others, who are not included in this bill, will face a worse one.

You know how much I care for our seniors in both Quebec and Canada because my family, my father is from Saskatchewan. I therefore have a very close connection to people living in the rest of Canada outside of Quebec. In my opinion, all seniors who have contributed to making Canada and Quebec what they are today should be given due consideration and be enabled to experience the end of life with the dignity they deserve in return for all they have given us in the past.

For a long time now, we have been asking the government to improve access to the guaranteed income supplement. For a long time, we have been demanding that the government make it easier for seniors to top up their revenue with the supplement. Previously, people could not get the guaranteed income supplement unless they made a formal request every year. Many people just could not collect it.

The committee that studied this issue in 2001 found that more than 380,000 people in Canada were not exercising their right to ask for the guaranteed income supplement because they were illiterate, or unable to see well enough to read the forms, which were difficult to understand. They may not have had access to resources to help them understand their rights, or they were simply speakers of other languages who did not understand their rights with respect to the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security program.

Bill C-36 will correct some of the problems facing our seniors. However, it does not correct all of them. We would have liked to have had the government and the Liberal Party on our side, in order to be able to correct some serious inadequacies. Some amendments were even made to the bill, to the effect that, now, some Canadians and Quebeckers who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement no longer are.

Yet, these are people who are Canadian citizens, people who contributed to our society, people who came here believing they would find justice and fairness, in many cases, unlike their experiences in their country of origin.

Today, we realize that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party did not want to admit that the amendments would restrict access to the guaranteed income supplement for Canadian citizens who are sponsored by someone else.

I find this quite deplorable, since we are talking about the most underprivileged people of all. Simply because an individual is sponsored by someone else does not always mean that that individual has better living conditions. Often, people are sponsored by individuals who, in good faith, wanted to bring them here to give them a better life. We are now seeing that, over the years, many jobs have been lost due to the ineffectiveness of the governments in place. They have failed to act in files such as the textile and manufacturing sectors. Furthermore, it has often been those Canadian citizens who are from somewhere else, who were born elsewhere, who have suffered those job losses.

Despite their best intentions, these people cannot always meet the needs of the relatives they brought here in order to give them a better life. I find the situation deplorable because these people contribute every day and pay taxes like everyone else. If they suddenly cannot meet their families' needs, it is not because they are not trying.

It is because our government was not smart enough and did not take the necessary steps to ensure that the manufacturing sector and the textile sector could provide decent jobs for these people over the long term.

This bill seeks to increase the number of third parties who can receive confidential information.

The government and the Liberal Party have refused to support the Bloc's amendment, which would not allow an increase in the number of third parties with access to confidential information. The law already provides for an authorized representative. Now, the bill refers to “any other individual authorized”.

I worked with seniors for many years. Many times, I saw children, siblings or neighbours of seniors cruelly abuse this right. They blackmailed the senior into signing documents that would give them access to information. Not only were they able to obtain relevant information, but they could also access bank documents and so on.

I do not understand why the government wants to expand access to seniors' confidential information to include any authorized individual.

Despite everything, this bill is sufficiently beneficial that we support it. However, we will have to be very vigilant and make sure that, in future, we have the opportunity to amend these clauses that seem slightly abusive to us.

Vulnerable seniors have no recourse available to them. They have no voice. We here, in Parliament, are their voice. We are the only ones who can help them get what they are entitled to. We should not abdicate that responsibility. It is a responsibility we must accept respectfully and vigorously.

If we do not, your mother, my mother and the parents and relatives of everyone here in this House will suffer and be deprived, because as a government, we did not do our best for them.

We have been fighting for a long time for seniors who have been mistreated and unable to receive the guaranteed income supplement. This bill is designed to further limit seniors' chances of obtaining retroactive guaranteed income supplement benefits.

Last year, on the eve of the election, the government voted by a majority for full retroactivity to be granted to older persons who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, I no longer sense this desire for fairness, I no longer sense this desire for justice from the members of the government. This surprises me greatly because the position of the Liberal Party was very clear on this not so long ago. However, we no longer see this desire for fairness.

I hope that we can discuss this issue further and that the people who were swindled out of this money, some $3 billion, can receive this money. Some $13 billion has just been invested in weaponry and $3 billion and change in airplanes. Furthermore, it wants to invest a few billion dollars in procuring jeeps.

Do those who provided us with the life we have today not deserve to have some money spent on them? Do these people not deserve some of the money we have in such abundance? There are surpluses every year. Annually, the government ends up with staggering surpluses, which it applies to the debt.

Of course some of this money can go toward the debt, but it is essential that we recognize the importance of the older persons who came before us, who allowed us to be here today, who, because of their actions and their courage, are the reason we are here today.

I do not see that in many of my colleagues in the government or in the Liberal Party, and that disappoints me tremendously. I would hope that this changes over the coming year. I am just one person, but all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois feel the same way I do, that we have to render justice to our seniors, to those who are isolated, alone and have no voice. We have to render justice to all those who came before us. We have to ensure they get justice. I can guarantee that most hon. members in the government and in the Liberal Party would sleep a lot better at night if we could render justice to these people.

When the committee conducted its study, it discovered a number of very disturbing things as far as older persons are concerned, a number of things that were more than disturbing because some seniors were living in total denial. Today, a very high number of older persons choose to die than simply survive or just get by.

More and more seniors are committing suicide, and this is unacceptable in a society like ours. It is unacceptable in a society as rich as the one we live in. It is awful to think that some seniors believe that suicide is better than living, that there is nothing left worth living for. I am ashamed to see that we do not care more than that, that we do not make an effort to give our seniors what they deserve. This bothers me and makes me very uneasy. We have comfortable lives, we cannot deny that. How many of our seniors can live comfortably?

In Laval, where I am from, there are 40,000 seniors, and 38% of those 65 and up are over the age of 75. This segment of society is the worst off, because these people do not usually receive the Quebec pension plan, do not receive any pension, do not receive anything. This category of people is increasing exponentially. In my riding of Laval alone, 12,000 people are over 75. There are more than 12,000 people between the ages of 75 and 90, even 100. One woman even recently celebrated her 104th birthday.

Quite often, these people may have retired 20 or 30 years ago. At the time, they thought they would live until the age of 70 or 75, because back then that was the life expectancy. So, they thought that if they lived until 70 or 75, they would be OK with what little money they had.

Now, they have reached the age of 90 or 95, and they have been without an income for 20 years. They thought they would die 20 years ago, but they are still around and they have very little income. Those with some capital can earn 1%, 2% or 3% in interest. That is not nearly enough for a decent living.

The cost of rent, food and drugs has increased. These people must visit the doctor more often and, since they no longer drive, they must do so by taking a taxi. This means that their related costs, their daily costs are very high, yet, a number of these people do not get the guaranteed income supplement and only get a pittance from the old age security program.

That is not how I want to grow old. That is not how I want my life to end. That is not how I want my mother to go.

I hope that everything we said about our elderly will be taken into consideration. I hope that people will think about this issue.

Yes, I do want Bill C-36 to be passed, because the part of the bill where it says that the guaranteed income supplement will automatically be renewed after the first claim is important. Many people did not know that they had to present a new claim every year. At least, they will get that. We have been asking for this for a long time, and I am pleased that, at last, it is included in the legislation.

The government could have gone further and be more generous. It has the means to do so. It chose not to. Still, the Bloc Québécois will continue to lead the fight, so that those who are entitled to it get full retroactivity. We will continue to lead the fight, so that the elderly are treated in a fair, responsible and respectful manner by this government.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the concerns raised by my colleague from Laval. I would like to ask her views on one detail, though.

Many of us have just gone through RRSP season. Many Canadians invest some of their hard-earned moneys in one of the few tax breaks that is allowed to us. However, many of us specify, in purchasing RRSPs, that we want them invested in an ethical way. We do not want our RRSPs invested in things in which we ourselves do not believe. Some do not want their investments in tobacco. Some do not want their investments made in military expenditures. There is any number of ethical screens we can apply to our RRSP. Statistically, we do not have to accept a lower rate of return to have an ethical investment plan. We can in fact enjoy a good rate of return and still apply ethical screens that reflect our values.

The Canada pension plan investment fund is specifically barred from taking into consideration any ethical screening whatsoever. Its mandate is strictly to get the highest rate of return at all costs, even if it means investing in a plant in the third world that uses child labour or tobacco farming, to which the Government of Canada is opposed. The government is trying to get everybody to quit smoking, yet money is being invested in tobacco.

Does she agree with me that we should mature as a society and apply the same type of ethical screening of our investments for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as many Canadians do to their own investment financial portfolio?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a society, because of everything happening in the world today, we must consider very carefully how we invest our money.

Through my RRSPs I have invested in ethical funds, green funds, responsible funds. That is a personal responsibility.

However, I am not surprised by the actions of this government, which is currently led by the Conservatives. First of all, this government does not believe in the virtues of ethics, responsible funds, ethical funds or in sustainable development.

I understand completely why those who manage pension funds do not consider avenues that could be very rewarding and that could also create employment. It could also allow a large portion of the population to be more involved in taking up the challenges awaiting our society as we enter the era of climate chaos, in light of greenhouse gas emissions and everything else. We must do something.

I am not an economist. I do not know a great deal about these matters, particularly funds. I always ask my advisor at the credit union to help me because I do not know anything about it. Quite often, after she has finished her explanation, I am no further ahead.

I hope that the people who sit on these boards will have the wisdom to debate this point. It is a very important point and I thank my colleague for having raised it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague. Once again, she has shown just how much she cares for society's most vulnerable members.

I would like to revisit the issue of seniors who almost never received the guaranteed income supplement even though they were entitled to it. In some cases, they were entitled to the full amount. My colleague was not in this House when our colleague who has since left us, Mr. Gagnon, began his crusade to identify seniors who had not received the guaranteed income supplement they were entitled to.

In my previous life as an accountant, my regular clients sent me their parents' or their old aunts' tax returns, and I noticed that those people were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Lots of seniors were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but they never asked for it. And the government never pointed it out to the people who sent in their tax returns. Even though it knew that these people should have been receiving the guaranteed income supplement, the government never gave it to them.

I had the opportunity to hold a meeting in my riding. Nearly 400 people—either seniors or people caring for seniors—attended. We did the math, and in some cases, we found that people would have been entitled to the supplement from the time it was created up until about four years ago. This would have been a lot of money for these people, as much as $90,000 in today's dollars. The government took away these people's rights.

Do you know what this means to seniors who are only collecting old age pension but who should be getting the guaranteed income supplement? It means isolation and a life of poverty. They cannot go out because they cannot afford to. They live shut in, especially if they do not have any family. This is an injustice.

Despite the $13 billion surplus, the Liberal and Conservative governments have not agreed to give these people back everything they sacrificed to directly finance the government. The $13 billion was used to pay off some of the debt. The real debt we owe is to these seniors who were cheated of their guaranteed income supplement.

I would like to ask my colleague why the Conservative government is doing this. Perhaps they are just following the example set by the Liberal Party when it was in power. Why do these people not want to pay the debt they owe our seniors?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the million-dollar question. I do not know why this is the situation. I would like to answer this question confidently, but I cannot answer it since I do not understand.

However, in many cases, it may be someone in their family, it may be one of their friends, it may be one of their neighbours, it may be someone who lives nearby. There is no doubt that they know these people would fully benefit from retroactivity.

I already said that in my work I have done checks in seniors' residences. There were no pets in these apartments, but in their cupboards were boxes of cat food. These seniors had no choice but to pay for their medication and eat cat food. This is unacceptable.

I do not understand why the government refuses to give seniors what they have earned. I do not understand. This is beyond comprehension. It must not have any understanding of poverty, or human dignity. I hope that one day it will have an epiphany, that it will see the light and understand that we owe seniors complete respect and dignity. I hope we will give them the money they deserve.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the outrage of my colleague from Laval. I appreciate the concern she brings here and the passion with which she portrays it.

If a person owed money to Revenue Canada, Revenue Canada would hound that person to the ends of the earth to get every nickel of that money going back three, four, five, seven years. Yet when the inverse is true and the Government of Canada owes this tiny pittance of money, the guaranteed income supplement, to a senior citizen, it will only pay 11 months in retroactivity. That is some magic figure it has pulled out of the air. After 11 months Canadians are cut off, even if for 20 years they have been shortchanged the money that should be rightfully coming to them. For some reason the government has pulled this convenient figure of 11 months out of the air. It is such a glaring contradiction that it makes my blood boil when I think about it.

I do not understand the logic or the reasoning, other than pure miserly, cheap bitterness on the part of the government that it would deny this money that is rightfully owed to seniors as the guaranteed income supplement. The reasoning the government used--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I interrupt the hon. member as the time has actually expired. I will give a few moments to the hon. member for Laval for a response.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I thank my colleague. I realize that he is as outraged as I am.

In my opinion, we are dealing with the Grinch. Everyone is familiar with the Christmas story of the Grinch. Everyone knows how miserly he is. That is what is happening here. The government does not want, under any circumstance or for any reason, to give these individuals the money they are owed.

Once again, I hope that all colleagues in this House will see the light and that no one in their family will have to suffer because of the government's lack of conscience.

That is truly my hope because it is terrible to see what is happening to disadvantaged and isolated seniors.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am disappointed by what is not in this bill.

Listening to the Conservatives, you would think that this bill is going to address the real causes of poverty and that it will solve the problems with our social security system. That is not at all the case. At the very most, this bill will resolve a few administrative difficulties and eliminate one obstacle to obtaining the guaranteed income supplement. It is for this reason alone that we will support this bill.

Earlier this morning the parliamentary secretary mentioned that there was a new report suggesting how much better off Canadians are. There has been some progress certainly, but there is still a huge prosperity gap.

Over a quarter of a million Canadian seniors live under the low income cutoff or, as we say, below the poverty line. For the 465,000 seniors who have no income other than OAS or GIS, this bill will do nothing. They will continue on an average income of about $12,400. There is a lot of talk about seniors being able to live with dignity and respect, but sadly, there is little action to make that a reality in this legislation.

Parliament approved the NDP's seniors charter by a vote of 231 to 52. The government voted in favour of it. One would have thought this law would have implemented some of its principles. One of the rights promised was the right to income security.

As I read this bill, I thought of seniors in Victoria and what this will do to address some of the issues they have raised with me. They are worried about the adequacy of their pensions to deal with their expenses. Here are some of the issues they have raised with me.

They are facing exorbitant rents. They said that rent controls are needed for seniors and those on disability pensions. “I just cannot afford my rent”, one said. This speaks of income security. Another said, “I am an 86-year-old senior and in need of home support. I would like to stay in my home, but it is becoming increasingly difficult without home support”. Another senior said, “I am among the working poor with no retirement fund. I am worried about how I will ever be able to retire”. Another said, “I need dental care and cannot afford it”.

This legislation was an opportunity to fulfill some promises. The bill was presented as a piece of legislation aimed at fixing problems with income support and yet it does nothing to deal with the real causes of poverty.

Nor will the income splitting that the Conservatives have proposed be helpful for the woman whom I spoke to yesterday whose husband recently died. He had been induced to invest in income trusts during the last election as a result of the promises of the Prime Minister. She is now alone and worried about her future. Pension income splitting will not help her, and saying that a minuscule GST cut is the government's way of helping her is a cruel joke.

Earlier I conceded that one positive amendment in this legislation was worth voting for in terms of removing the barriers in the application process.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she has 16 minutes left in her time. It is time for statements by members.

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Victoria has the floor. When she last spoke on the bill she had 16 minutes left.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

As I was saying when we left off, this bill does tinker with a few administrative issues, but it does not address the substantive issues that seniors are facing. It really is the incredible lightness of Bill C-36 that best characterizes it. There is so much more that could have been done. Perhaps seniors will be listening very closely this afternoon during the budget to see if everything that could have gone into this bill but was overlooked and forgotten might be addressed by the budget. We can always hope.

I would like to talk about three issues: eligibility, retroactivity, and the clawback.

Large numbers of people are eligible but are not receiving benefits. According to Statistics Canada, right now there are 130,000 low income seniors who are eligible for the GIS but are not receiving it. Eighty per cent of those missing out on the GIS are women, most of whom are very elderly. There are also about 55,000 who are missing out on CPP retirement benefits. For the average riding, that works out to about 200 seniors who are not getting their CPP. That means 200 seniors in Victoria.

The comparable number missing out on the Quebec pension plan benefits is apparently zero. Why are there no people missing out on the Quebec plan but so many elsewhere in Canada? Apparently the answer is that they receive phone calls or even visits by officials to let them know how to apply for these benefits.

There are no legislative impediments to Canadian officials advising seniors who appear to be eligible for OAS, GIS and CPP benefits. Files are used to identify seniors who have received overpayments. Computer files such as income tax returns are used to automatically reduce OAS payments to those subject to the OAS clawback. The same files could be used to identify those seniors who should be receiving benefits but are not.

This legislation ensures ways of securing interest on payments owed to the Crown but does nothing to ensure payments owed to seniors by the Crown. For example, the government has now admitted on three separate occasions that seniors have been shortchanged for the last five years because Statistics Canada miscalculated the consumer price index in 2001.

Bill C-36 enhances the government's ability to recoup money from seniors when they receive too much money due to government error, but when seniors receive too little due to government error, the government refuses to reimburse them. That is shameful. That is precisely the kind of thing that the government, when it was the Reform Party or the Alliance or whatever it was, would have gone after, but now, for some strange reason, it has become silent on this injustice.

I would also like to talk about retroactive payments. The current legislation does not remedy the case when seniors apply late for payments. The OAS is notionally a universal program, payable based on the number of years one has lived in Canada. It is an entitlement based on past residency. The OAS, at one time, had a five year retroactive period. This period should be more than the 11 months that it is now and perhaps should return to the five years.

The CPP and the QPP are quite different. Here, the funds disbursed do not come from the consolidated revenue fund but are made up of contributions from employers and employees, contributions that have actually been made. These benefits are funded from contributions from Canadians. Here there is a fiduciary responsibility by the government, and the appropriate period should be full retroactivity, plus interest.

There is a private member's bill before the House that would do just that and would provide full retroactivity for the CPP, and since the government did not do it, I would urge all members of the House to support that bill.

In addition, this legislation does nothing to address the GIS clawback. Earnings, RRSP withdrawals and CPP benefits for those on GIS face an effective tax rate of 50% to 100%. This is because GIS is reduced by 50% for every dollar of income, including RRSP withdrawals. The structure of the current clawbacks for GIS makes it virtually impossible for GIS recipients to enjoy the benefits of any RRSP savings they may have. In a similar fashion, any employment undertaken by seniors who are on GIS will lead to GIS clawbacks.

The right enshrined in the seniors charter was to income security. We are still very far from that. We have asked for a seniors advocate to help look into the adequacy of the programs available to seniors. Instead, the government provided a committee. We have to go much further than that and ensure that our seniors have income security and well-being in this country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member wanted to talk about seniors as a vulnerable group in society and particularly about the issue of poverty among seniors. As well, there is the aspect of some 130,000 seniors who are not able to collect the guaranteed income supplement, I believe.

I wonder whether the member is aware of what actions the Government of Canada has taken to contact those Canadians to ensure that if they are eligible for such benefits they in fact are appropriately instructed on how to apply.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, 130,000 low income seniors are now eligible for but not receiving GIS benefits, so much more than that, and 55,000 are missing out on CPP retirement benefits. This is quite a significant number.

As far as I know, the seniors are not being advised in any way on this aspect of what is their entitlement. After seniors have worked their whole lives, the government is turning a blind eye to this benefit that Canadian seniors have a right to. Right now in Victoria there are about 55,000 seniors and 5,600 of them are living in poverty. They are living month to month, in some cases with great difficulty where rents are very high in one of the most expensive cities in Canada, yet about 200 of them are not advised in any way by the government about the best way to benefit from what would essentially lift them, at least partially, out of the extreme poverty that some of them face.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this issue about the CPP, the OAS and the GIS is really near and dear to my heart. We are returning from two constituency weeks and I spent the better part of that time knocking on doors, meeting with seniors' organizations and meeting seniors in their homes.

I must say that one of the most important issues for seniors is their ability to live out their retirement with dignity and respect. In my hometown of Hamilton, 25% of seniors live in poverty, 36% of them women, and when the member for Victoria talks about the 55,000 people who are not able to access their benefits, she is talking about many people in my community.

I know that the poverty rates are much the same for seniors right across the country. Since the member for Victoria represents her constituents so amazingly effectively in this House of Commons, I wonder if she can tell us what the situation is in Victoria and whether she thinks this bill helps those seniors and lifts them out of poverty in any way at all.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the break I also spoke to many seniors. In particular, I spoke to an organization called the Greater Victoria Seniors, which advocates for seniors who are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.

The stories I heard are really very troubling. At a time in their lives when they have finished working and are looking forward to this time, many seniors are still facing incredible poverty. We are all aware of the enormous contributions seniors make to their communities. They are looking forward to enjoying that time of their lives when they have finished working. Many seniors are still facing incredible poverty or, if they are not facing poverty, they are in some cases living from month to month. This is what this bill could have addressed and chose to sidestep.

Yes, the bill does tinker with and improve the service delivery of the GIS, removing the need to reapply, but on the substantive issues it is virtually silent. For example, one of the demands made by seniors across the country, not just in Victoria or in British Columbia, was that they need a seniors' ombudsman, someone who will advocate for them and who will look into the adequacy and fairness of our programs. The government has again refused to respond to this demand.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate on behalf of the NDP caucus in the third reading debate on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

I know that the government wants the bill to pass through the House expeditiously. With an election perhaps just days away, the government desperately needs something to hold up to seniors to say, “See? We acted on your concerns”. However, every time I have pushed the government for action on issues like fully pension retroactivity or reimbursement of the money owed to seniors as a result of the CPI miscalculation, it has responded by dodging the issues at hand and instead has pointed to this bill simply as a placebo.

That is all this bill is, a placebo. It is a placebo that has all the right things in its title. It references the three cornerstones of most seniors' retirement income, namely the GIS, the OAS and the CPP. In doing so it raises hopes among seniors that this legislation will finally take the necessary steps to lift them out of poverty, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite the bill's promising title, it does little to improve the lives of the vast majority of seniors in Canada. Instead, it engages in administrative tinkering that serves the government more than it serves its purported target audience. There is only one section in the entire bill that is truly laudable, and that is that the government is finally going to waive the requirement for a renewal application for the GIS and allowance benefits after an initial application has been made. That change, quite frankly, is long overdue.

Once seniors have applied for and received the GIS, there is absolutely no need for them to fill out subsequent applications. Their income tax forms give the government all the information that is needed to determine continued eligibility. Removing this burden from seniors is indeed a welcome relief.

Sadly, the bill is more remarkable for what it failed to achieve than for what it accomplished.

During the past few weeks I held consultations with seniors throughout my riding of Hamilton Mountain. It did not matter whether I was talking to seniors on their doorsteps, at a meeting of the residents' council of Swansea Apartments, at a gathering of active seniors at the Sackville Hill Seniors Recreation Centre, or at a meeting of over 150 seniors at St. Elizabeth Village, the message was always the same. Seniors are concerned primarily about the adequacy of their incomes and about the need for improved health care.

I recognize that health care issues are beyond the scope of this bill, but suffice it to say that huge numbers of elderly people in my community are suffering. They are suffering because they cannot afford the diapers for their incontinence. They cannot afford the new lenses for their glasses that would allow them to carry on their normal independent lives. They cannot afford the dentures that are so crucial to their nutrition and to their overall health.

The seniors who told me those stories were shy about admitting those problems publicly. Most of them came up to me privately at the end of meetings and tearfully told me of their personal care needs. In many instances they had to swallow their pride to reach out for help.

That is not the retirement with dignity and respect that the government promised to seniors when it voted for my seniors charter. This House has adopted the charter as a statement of fundamental rights that each and every senior in Canada deserves to enjoy as a contributing member of our society. The time to enact those rights is now.

The other concern that is top of mind for seniors not just in Hamilton but right across the country is income security. Seniors everywhere told me that they are worried about the solvency of their private pensions, the adequacy of survivor pensions should they predecease their spouse, the sufficiency of CPP and public income supports, and their ability to cope with what Statistics Canada confirms is a higher rate of inflation for seniors than for average Canadians.

Since the mid-1990s seniors' incomes have reached a ceiling. The gap between seniors' revenues and those of other Canadians is increasing. According to the National Advisory Council on Aging, between 1997 and 2003 the mean income of senior households increased by $4,100 while the average income of other Canadian households increased by $9,000.

The situation is even more pronounced for seniors living alone. In total, over one-quarter of a million seniors live under the low income cutoff, or as we more commonly say, below the poverty line. In 2004 about one-third of seniors, most of whom were single women, had little other income and were dependent on OAS and GIS for an average annual income of only $12,400.

Living in poverty is hardly a retirement with dignity and respect. So when seniors learned that the government was finally going to open up the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and bring in amendments, they greeted the news with cautious optimism. They eagerly awaited a sign that the government understood the financial plight of seniors and that it would do the right thing for those who built our country.

However, when seniors had a chance to review the bill, they felt cheated. The programs that seniors rely on most for their financial security are finally being amended and yet nowhere does the bill address the most urgent needs articulated by seniors. The bill does not increase benefit levels to lift seniors out of poverty. The bill does not allow seniors to claim retroactive benefits, even if they are just trying to access their own money, as is the case with the Canada pension plan. The bill does nothing to foster a higher take-up for those unaware that they are eligible for government benefits.

Yes, we will be supporting Bill C-36 because we must at least ensure that the poorest of seniors will have easier access to the GIS, but for everything else, we must now pin our hopes on this afternoon's budget. Perhaps it will live up to the spirit of the seniors' charter and see the government walk the walk.

Seniors are still waiting to be reimbursed for the StatsCan error in calculating the consumer price index that has shortchanged seniors for years on the increases to their CPP, OAS and GIS entitlements. Will the government's budget this afternoon fix this egregious wrong? Will the government allocate resources to re-establish the government specialists within Services Canada who can help people access their pension entitlements fully and in a timely fashion? If not, will the budget at least contain provisions that mirror my private member's Bill C-336 and allow for full retroactive benefits plus interest when someone applies for the CPP?

CPP is a pay as you go, contribution based program that is funded solely by employers and employees. It is absurd that a person who is late in applying for his or her pension is only entitled to 11 months of retroactive benefits. It is that person's money. It is not the government's money.

Will the budget live up to the other commitments the government made to seniors by voting for my seniors' charter in the House of Commons? Will it invest in accessible, universal, public health care by increasing funding to primary care, home care, palliative care, pharmacare, preventive care and health promotion? Will it support secure, accessible and affordable housing? Will it create lifelong learning opportunities? Will it finally create the office of the seniors advocate to ensure that seniors are involved in policy making and have access to all government programs and services? This afternoon the proof will be in the pudding.

If the government wants to be taken seriously with respect to its treatment of seniors, it needs to do more than talk the talk. It needs to walk the walk. Bill C-36 left seniors feeling betrayed. It is not too late to do the right thing. Let us listen to the voices of seniors in Hamilton and right across the country. Let us give them the support they need to retire with the dignity and respect they deserve. We owe them at least that much.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech about the situation facing our senior citizens. I was very moved by the clear passion and commitment she shows for senior citizens.

Across my region of northern Ontario I am seeing a terrible situation. Senior citizens, people who built this country, are slipping into poverty. There are families whose parents are living in terrible conditions. After putting years into building our economy and their pensions, the time has come for the government to support them, but they are being left behind. I was astounded by the stories that I heard just this past week in Kirkland Lake, Iroquois Falls and Timmins. I met senior citizens and heard their stories. It is a disgrace for a country with a surplus that we have to leave these people behind.

Given that it was the New Democratic Party that brought forward a seniors' charter to defend the rights of senior citizens so that they do not have to come begging to politicians every time, and that there will be guarantees for senior citizens so that they do not live in poverty, how does the member look at the bill before us? The bill does nothing to address the growing gap and it does nothing to address the basic issue of fairness for senior citizens. What do we need to do to ensure that senior citizens have a reason to trust politicians, to believe that politicians will actually stand up and fight for a fundamental belief which I think all Canadians agree with, that the elderly should be looked after because they helped build the country?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This bill is a little bit of flag waving to try to placate seniors and for the government to say that it did something in the House of Commons to address their concerns.

Substantively the bill does very little. The seniors in the member's riding of Timmins—James Bay are like the seniors of Hamilton Mountain and the seniors in Victoria that my other colleague spoke about. They do not need more rhetoric. What they need from the government is action.

We have the capacity to deal with those things in the House. I tabled a motion asking that the House of Commons review the income needs of seniors on a regular basis, that we establish adequate benefit levels and that we say to seniors that it is unacceptable that they are living in poverty after all the contributions they have made to build this amazing country. If we are not going to do that, at a minimum we should take seriously Bill C-336 which I introduced so that seniors can access their CPP entitlements retroactively.

It is completely insane that we rely on funeral homes to let people know about their survivor benefits when a loved one passes away. Why can the government not engage in active outreach? It used to do that. There used to be people in Services Canada who counselled people with respect to their pension entitlements. Those people are now dealing with everything from boat licences to employment insurance. That is not good enough.

Our seniors deserve the kind of hands on specialized attention that gives them access to their benefits in a timely fashion. If that is not provided, then at a minimum seniors should be given full retroactivity for their benefits so that no matter when they find out about their entitlements they can get the money that is legally and legitimately theirs. That is the minimum of what we need to do to lift seniors out of poverty.

When the government supported the seniors' charter we all saw that as beacon of hope. We thought that perhaps just for once this House would move forward and take the right steps on behalf of seniors. Clearly that has not happened yet. On the eve of an election I am not optimistic that it is going to happen, but boy, I know that the government is going to be out there waving the flag and saying, “Trust us. We will do it next time”.

I do not think seniors are so trusting any more. They cannot be fooled. They deserve action now.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to a charter of rights for seniors. It is an interesting concept and something which I actually tabled back in February 2004.

Could the member explain very briefly how that relates to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that after the lengthy debate in the House about that charter in June of last year which actually led to the adoption of this charter by the House the member would be aware of the rights that were enumerated in the charter. Those rights are the right to income security, the right to health care, the right to wellness, the right to lifelong learning and above all, a mechanism to give real access to seniors for all of the government programs and services that the charter outlines.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-36. It is an important debate notwithstanding that the parties are supportive of the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Old Age Security Act, and some of the provisions of senior security.

Interesting enough, members have spent a fair bit of time talking about seniors, poverty and vulnerability. I will not change that because it is well worth speaking to those. However, I will speak briefly to the intent of Bill C-36.

As we all know, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Old Age Security Act provide the basis for government sponsored social benefit programs that offer a minimum level of supplementary income to senior citizens, retired or disabled individuals and their dependants following a loss of income. An important point to note is that our seniors population will double over the next 25 years.

When I was first elected in 1993, the seniors' proportion of my constituency was approximately 15%. It is now over 20%. Based on the latest information available, there is no question the senior population is rising. I will be faced with a populace that is very vulnerable and has a significant amount of needs. I have seen it in the level of activity in my riding. Many people in my community have reached retirement age. My community is the most mature community in the city of Mississauga. Many of these people do not live in the dignity in which I believe Canadians would wish them to live.

The bill addresses a couple of things.

With regard to the Canada pension plan, I played an important role with respect to Bill C-2, which was the last time major amendments were made to the Canada Pension Plan Act. Some members may recall that back in 1997 a lot of Canadians said that the Canada pension plan was bankrupt. They believed it would not be there for them in the future and therefore could not depend on it. That is no longer the case.

The government of the day brought in important changes to the Canada Pension Plan Act which, in particular, dealt with the premiums that were received from those who contributed to the Canada pension plan. Rather than loaning those premiums to the provinces at low or no interest, the whole funding of the Canada pension plan was put on an independent basis. The moneys collected were invested in the public marketplace in a fashion that would not disrupt it. A tremendous amount of capital was invested, but it was set up through a special investment board.

As it turns out that plan has done very well. The most recent actuarial evaluation of which I am aware indicates that the plan is on a very sound footing and has been for over 90 years. That is very significant and Canadians should understand the Canada pension plan is there for all of them.

With regard to Bill C-36, there are a couple of amendments of note. The first one has to do with disability benefits. Members will note that currently disability benefits are available after four years of participation in the labour force if individuals are members of the plan. That will be changed to three years.

It should be noted that the Canada pension plan and the old age security, together, pay out over $50 billion a year in support. This is a very large number. It probably makes most people's eyes roll back at the magnitude of it, yet people within our society do not benefit to the extent necessary to ensure they can live in the dignity and the respect to which they should and are entitled.

With regard to the guaranteed income supplement, it currently pays out $6.2 billion a year. Right now roughly 12% of our population is seniors. That figure is expected to double in the next 25 years. We understand the demands an aging society can have on these important programs. Even now there is evidence of that, as we have already heard from members with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. For instance, some 130,000 seniors, who are eligible for those benefits, have not applied and have not received them. Why have we as a country, as parliamentarians, as government not found a way to be in touch with every Canadian, particularly the most vulnerable in our society? I refer to seniors collectively because they have the least opportunities and tools available to correct their situation. They cannot go back to work. They cannot somehow deal with inflation by themselves. Inflation generally eats away any income protection they have against inflation.

For a person is on a fixed income it really is a challenge. Consider the range of needs of seniors, and we have all seen them in our ridings, whether it is pharmacare, or home care, or excessive medical expenses. With our tax credit system now, there is very nominal support from the tax system, such as the medical expense supplement. There are so many different ways. Housing is an extremely important issue, although the bill does not address it. However, we are talking about aspects that impact the lives of seniors in many ways. These changes will address some of those. It is not a short bill, but these significant amendments are very brief.

The second amendment, other than the Canada pension plan, has to do with the disability portion of the Canada pension plan. The disability portion provides disabled Canadians with income supplement. The proposed changes will make it easier for them to qualify for that benefit.

Under the current law, individuals have to be CPP contributors for four of the last six years before the disability makes us unemployable and takes us out of the labour force. The amendment would change that from four years to three years. This would bring another 3,700 people into eligibility for Canada pension plan disability by the year 2010, according to the government estimates. It would also provide additional benefits to a spouse and children.

This is all well and good. These are important changes. The accessibility and the sustainability of these programs would be enhanced by the bill, and I am pleased members are supporting it. However, I want to move even beyond Bill C-36, as other members have, and talk about the broader range of seniors' issues with which the House must be seized.

Back in February 2004, I tabled a series of motions related to seniors' health and well-being.

The first motion was to consider the advisability of a guaranteed annual income for seniors. We have talked about poverty for a long time in this place. Talk is cheap, but how do we get to where we want to go? We have to ask ourselves the rhetorical question. What is the level of poverty that we are prepared to tolerate in Canada? If the answer is none, as some members have suggested, then why does everybody who makes minimum wage automatically live in poverty? Why has the purchasing power of seniors been eroded by inflation? Why have things like GIS not been indexed? It was declining in purchasing power.

If we believe seniors are the most vulnerable, that they are the ones least able to deal with the challenge of financial need for basic necessities, then clearly we should talk about something like a guaranteed annual income.

I proposed another motion to eliminate mandatory retirement. We have seniors who, for whatever reason, were unsuccessful or unlucky during their working careers, or they were unable to have sustained work, or they had a family tragedy, or their financial base for retirement purposes was taken away because someone was very ill. We know many illnesses for which there is no coverage under insurance plans and the tax benefits are not enough to pay for substantial amounts.

My daughter was taking a drug that cost $1,700 per month when she was fighting cancer. It was not covered by insurance or recovered through tax benefits. The money had to be paid, and it was not discretionary. The drug provided the only way for her white cells to recover quickly enough so she could withstand the regimen of chemotherapy.

I also know about seniors' issues. My mother is 82 years old and has a number of prescriptions, like many seniors do. Many of the prescriptions are expensive. Some are covered but not all. Even some of the basic ones, like calcium for bone strength, are not covered. It is hard to believe that these kinds of things can actually happen, but it is endemic in the system related to seniors.

Another motion was about caregiver tax credits. Although our system has caregiver tax credits, family members, usually a son or daughter, and if there is one of each usually the daughter, probably will have to withdraw from the paid labour force to care for the parent. Let us consider that. They withdraw from the labour force, do not earn income, do not participate in the Canada pension plan as fully as they could have and therefore defer the buildup of their own pension benefits. There is a ripple effect when someone has to provide care, for which we know the system does not provide.

Caregiving for those in need in our society, particularly seniors, is generally not available. As a jurisdictional responsibility, it falls on the provinces, but I will never ever use the argument that it is one jurisdiction over another. The issue is seniors. The issue is the need for caregiving for those who are most in need.

I proposed a motion to provide EI benefits for caregivers who withdrew from the paid labour force to care for a family member. Why should they not qualify for EI benefits? They are providing an important service. They are not withdrawing from the paid labour force for a discretionary reason. It is needed and necessary. It is the right thing to do. Why can we not support those who provide care through the EI program?

I also proposed a motion for a refundable medical expense supplement. There is a provision for extraordinary expenses, but I believe it only covers 25% of them. I wanted to double that to 50%. Again, medical expenses are not discretionary. When they are digging into the pockets of fixed income earning seniors, we can understand how we could have a very good debate and argument for doing this.

I had another motion to amend the Canada pension plan to permit those who withdrew from the paid labour force to provide for an agent or infirm member. They are withdrawing. Under CPP, why could it not be deemed to be work? Why can they not pay into CPP during the time they are caring for a loved one, a senior, and continue to earn CPP credits? It makes so much sense to me. We have the tools to work with if we could only get these things on the table in terms of a comprehensive strategy to deal with seniors.

I also wanted to introduce a motion that would take the necessary steps to improve accessibility to home care, to establish meaningful guidelines to ensure that the number of hours of care available are sufficient and to expand home care to include chronic care. Chronic care is not part of the home care model. Chronic care is a different situation. It is a lot more intense and involves a lot more time. It falls through the cracks.

We could work with the provinces to strengthen the pharmacare system and that would ensure all medically necessary drugs were available to seniors without cost? Why is it that we cannot define medically necessary? In the Canada Health Act, medically necessary is not a defined term. I remember talking with Roy Romanow about this one day and asking whether we should do it. He said that if we were to open that up it would really cause some problems. I am not afraid of problems. I would like Mr. Romanow to come here and explain it to parliamentarians. Maybe the health committee should call him and ask him why we should not be talking about medically necessary services, especially as it relates to seniors. Why should we not talk about supporting seniors who need medically necessary drugs?

Many of the tools are here. We could look at working with the provinces to expand and improve accessibility to affordable housing. The Government of Canada has more work to do on the affordable housing file.

I spent five years on the board of the Peel Regional Housing Authority. I know a lot about rent geared to income. I know a lot about subsidized housing and government housing and how important it is. Half the units in my community are seniors' units and the other half are mostly for families led by mothers. The seniors' units are there but in the last report I received from the region of Peel, the wait list can be anywhere from four to seven years, depending on one's rating based on need.

Affordable housing obviously comes in there. This is all part of this theme that Bill C-36 brings to the House about dealing with sustainability of and accessibility to the tools or benefits that seniors need. This is also part of the model.

I have another motion to establish guidelines for the care of the chronically ill and those who require continuous care and for the regulation of the nursing home industry. I am sorry I had to raise that one in Parliament by way of a motion but members may recall that we had gone through a period of time where seniors' abuse in some of the caregiving facilities was an issue. It is an issue that does scream out for guidelines within our caregiving institutions. It is another way in which we can help seniors.

We could also amend the Criminal Code to recognize that taking unfair advantage of a vulnerable senior represents an aggravating factor which warrants stiffer sentences for those convicted of that abuse. Can anyone imagine seniors being taken advantage of by people who recognize their situations and defraud them of money? That is an aggravating circumstance. They are taking advantage of a situation. Our Criminal Code should take that into consideration.

I want to add one last element that has to do with something to which a previous member had spoken, and that is a charter of rights for seniors.

I asked the question earlier about how a charter of rights for seniors would dovetail with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, as a matter of fact, it does not and it is not intended to. However, it should define the values and the attributes that we want to show in terms of the Canadian value system as it relates to seniors so that every time we introduce legislation in Parliament, we should always look at it with the lens of a seniors' charter that protects their rights and ensures we are not eroding them or attacking them but that we are somehow ensuring benefits go to them.

The seniors' charter is only a lens. Just as we use the gender analysis to ensure women's issues are properly reflected and cared for in legislation, seniors should have the same.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my comments will be twofold. First, I am going to ask the hon. member to do something, and then I will put a question to him.

First, I am inviting the hon. member to reread the comments that he just made. He spoke as if he were a new member in this House. However, he is a seasoned parliamentarian who was a government member just a few months ago. During all the years when his party was in office, we put to him the same questions that he is now asking. When his party was in office, he could have settled the issue.

We in this House heard all this empty rhetoric about intentions. What is the member's intention? If his party is elected again to run the country, the member will again do what he did in the past. Who created the problem? In 2001, public servants admitted they knew that some low income seniors had not received the guaranteed income supplement. They even knew how many. The member mentioned that number. If the number is known, then we also know who these people are. Why? Because they can be identified by looking at income tax returns.

The previous government used a pretext, namely that access to information and confidentiality was the main obstacle. However, the information commissioner said that the act authorized such an exercise.

I now come to my question, which is twofold. When the Liberals were in office, why did they not give seniors the guaranteed income supplement to which they were entitled? These people are still owed $3.2 billion. If the member's party is re-elected again, does he commit to act, as he is now claiming, to do something about this issue?

We Bloc Québécois members did take action. In 2001, our former colleague, Mr. Gagnon, who was the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, led the campaign. When he first started, 68,000 seniors in Quebec had not received their guaranteed income supplement. We were able to track down 42,000 of these people, who were supposed to share a total of $159 million. That is a huge amount. A large number of these people are still waiting for a sum of $128 million that has yet to be given to them. That money has not been paid to these people in Quebec. I want to know why this was not done.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, politically the member needs to ask the question that way but he knows full well that I am a backbench member of Parliament, not the Government of Canada.

When I was on the government side I argued those things. In fact, I tabled 19 motions in this place dealing with seniors during the time the Liberals were in government. I advocated for seniors. As a matter of fact, I pulled out an old householder from mid-2005 in which I laid out the number of people who were entitled to benefits and had not received them.

We can ask why the government does not do this or that. I tell my constituents, who have moms or dads in their retirement years and who may be eligible for benefits, to ensure they are involved. When things do not happen it is not necessarily the fault of the government. The government can facilitate those things but it is the responsibility of families. Families must be engaged. If there are people who are eligible for GIS but who have absolutely no family members who love or care for them, then we have an even bigger problem.

I appreciate the member's comments. I am here today continuing something that I started many years ago, which is to advocate for the most vulnerable in our society. I have many tools that I have identified for governments to consider but governments must deal with certain priorities. In the case of why was it not done during the last government, I can say that when a government starts off with a $42 billion deficit left by the Conservative government, it takes at least three years to clean up the financial mess. In order for the last government to do that it had to make enormous cuts to so many different things. One can imagine how difficult it was to claw our way back to the level of services that Canadians should have.

Subsequent to the previous government cleaning up the fiscal mess, tax cuts came, benefits improved, employment was up and interest rates were down. When we finished we handed over the strongest financial situation any government had ever inherited.

The money and the tools are there. I am waiting for the government to deliver in today's budget. Seniors deserve to receive a good share of that money.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members of the House who have listened to my colleague have huge respect for his knowledge with respect to the guaranteed income supplement and those situations that seniors find themselves facing. I would like to take advantage of his knowledge and have him answer a question that has been asked in my office many times this week.

While keeping in mind those aberrations that occur under the Canada Health Act, how is it that in the province of Ontario there is what amounts to a tax on the health care premium? I know seniors who are much below the poverty line and they are being pressed because their taxable income finds that they actually must pay on their health care premium in the province of Ontario. How can that happen under the Canada Health Act?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue, unfortunately, has to do with a provincial initiative but a benefit nonetheless.

It does raise an interesting point about when something happens regardless of the jurisdiction. We have a situation where the tax implications with regard to the health premium in Ontario is a detriment to many seniors. I have often wondered why we do not have a system to check the implications of actions of other levels of government to ensure that when things happen that we as the Government of Canada can use the tools that we have available to offset, to subsidize or to refund through the federal system those kinds of implications.

What it gets down to is that we need to have a simple criteria. It may very well be that if it is medically necessary, if it has to do with seniors and it has to do with seniors who are in need, that is where we should set our priorities.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my second opportunity to speak about Bill C-36. I am happy to do so, particularly because I am the critic for seniors' issues.

I would simply like to remind members, as others have done before me, that in 2006 we introduced Bill C-36, but I think it should have been introduced long ago, since five years earlier the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examined the guaranteed income supplement, a non-taxable monthly benefit, which is supposed to be paid, based on household income, to low-income beneficiaries of the old age security pension.

In its December 2001 report, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities observed a number of deficiencies in the application of the guaranteed income supplement program, which is among the three income-maintenance programs for seniors administered by the Department of Human Resources and Social Development. The three programs are not perfect, but today I will only address the guaranteed income supplement, because there are some serious deficiencies in its application.

First of all, in order to receive the guaranteed income supplement, citizens had to apply for it every year. Eligible individuals usually applied for a renewal when completing their tax returns. It is precisely this last point that is the source of a grave injustice.

In its analysis of the matter, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities referred to a study conducted in Toronto in early 2001 by social statistician and policy analyst Richard Shillington. The study found that only 15% of seniors who were using food banks were getting the guaranteed income supplement, though nearly all were eligible for it. Furthermore, a news report in the August 23, 2001 edition of The Toronto Star stated that more than 380,000 Canadians eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it.

Personally, I find these statistics appalling, since seniors are vulnerable individuals who are often unable to stand up for themselves.

The question was simple. Why did so many people fail to apply for the guaranteed income supplement, something that could be so beneficial to people who are poor and without resources?

The answer was equally simple. For one thing, it is not easy for elderly people with low literacy levels or failing eyesight to understand the complexity of the eligibility criteria, the content of tax returns and the information pamphlets written for them. For another thing, many people did not know that they had to renew their application every year.

The guaranteed income supplement is for seniors who have physical or mental health problems, physical limitations, language barriers, or limited literacy skills who receive complicated documents, written in language that is often inaccessible and difficult. It is therefore not surprising that 85% of eligible individuals do not take advantage of this income.

Furthermore, Human Resources Development Canada apparently had difficulty contacting particularly disadvantaged clienteles, such as people who have never worked outside the home—often women at that age, and a significant number of them—, people who do not file income tax returns—also numerous—, aboriginal people, residents of remote communities, people with limited literacy skills, people who do not read or speak either official language, people with a disability or who are ill, and the homeless.

Most absurd of all is no doubt the fact that HRDC had been aware of the under-subscription of GIS since at least 1993, but never did anything about it, as evidenced by the fact that the problem persists, or at least did so at the time when Bill C-36, which has yet to come into force, was introduced.

There are not very many options to solve this problem. First and foremost, potentially eligible individuals, whether they file income tax returns or not, have to be contacted directly.

Naturally, it is easier to contact those who file income tax returns, given that their income is already known to the government. However, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities noted that the human resources department refrained from using information from tax returns for fear of contravening the provisions of the Income Tax Act governing the protection of taxpayer information.

Had this money been owed to the government, I think that this fear would have been quickly alleviated.

The Privacy Commissioner had to intervene to lift this fear, stating before the committee that, under section 241 of the Income Tax Act, the provision of information was allowed for the purposes of the administration of the Old Age Security Act, because the GIS is nothing more than a component of the OAS.

This means that HRDC had not only the means but also the authority to check. So, for the past 14 years, the department could and should have been helping tens of thousands of people among the least fortunate in our society, but has not. That is bordering on scandalous.

Simply put, by its lack of action, HRDC financially penalized individuals among the most disadvantaged. It is mystifying to see that, at the time when this study was tabled, in 2001, officials admitted that the government had been aware of the situation for at least eight years and, yet, HRDC did not manage to take appropriate steps to remedy the problem.

Luckily the Bloc Québécois was there. Over the past few years, the Bloc Québécois has noticed that seniors are among those the most affected by the federal government cuts to transfer payments. The quality of life of older persons quite often depends on the care they can receive. This quality of life also depends on their income.

That is why the Bloc Québécois harshly criticized the irregularities in the guaranteed income supplement program, which guarantees low-income seniors additional income. The negligence of the Liberal government in managing the guaranteed income supplement program was such that in 2001, more than 68,000 seniors in Quebec, who are among those who needed it the most, were still being short changed up to $6,600 a year. I think that would be a significant amount of money to a low-income person.

A major operation by the Bloc Québécois has so far uncovered roughly 42,000 of these people, several of whom did not receive the money they were entitled to for years under the federal guaranteed income supplement program. This effort represents roughly $190 million more, redistributed to the least fortunate in our society. What is $190 million compared to the billions of dollars invested in the military?

A lot of work still needs to be done. In the riding I have been representing for almost four months, I have been in contact with the owner of a retirement home, who is aware of the issue, to ask him to approach the seniors in his establishment to determine their financial situation. The man in question sent a short letter to all his residents explaining that if their income did not exceed a certain amount, they could verify whether they were entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement. Believe it or not, after three weeks, we have already met three people who were entitled to this supplement who were not receiving it. And that is just in one retirement home. Imagine what we would find across Quebec and Canada.

That means that in Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada, a number of people have been swindled by the federal government. These people should be reimbursed.

The Bloc Québécois plans to continue its efforts to ensure that older persons who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement receive it, and that the government reimburses the $3.2 billion that it stole from them over the years by feigning ignorance.

In 2001, the committee studying the guaranteed income supplement issued seven recommendations. I would like to review them briefly. Unfortunately, these suggestions and recommendations were not included in Bill C-36 as tabled.

The first recommendation in the committee's report was to ask HRDC, in conjunction with other relevant federal departments, to work immediately to develop an automatic notification process so as to ensure that all potential guaranteed income supplement applicants, prior to their 65th birthday, are apprised of the availability of this income support.

Second, the committee recommended that HRDC, in conjunction with the Canada Revenue Agency, take the necessary steps to develop an automatic process for renewing guaranteed income supplement eligibility, and that the department take immediate steps to simplify the initial application for the guaranteed income supplement.

Third, the committee recommended that the government consider adopting a variable retroactive guaranteed income supplement payment period.

The Bloc Québécois found that this recommendation could be improved and suggested that the committee recommend that the government pay out full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement and the allowance. Such a policy would have ensured retroactive payments for the entire period of entitlement. The Bloc Québécois' recommendation was not adopted.

Fourth, the Committee recommended that the Government of Canada define “occasional income” and exempt a certain level of occasional income for the purposes of the guaranteed income supplement and the allowance.

Fifth, the Committee recommended that HRDC undertake an extensive and systematic public awareness campaign to ensure that all seniors receive clear, simple and easily understood information on how to access information on the guaranteed income supplement.

Sixth, the committee recommended that HRDC and the CCRA continue to work together to identify and directly contact seniors who may be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

Seventh, the committee recommended that all future annual departmental performance reports of HRDC include an estimate of the number of eligible seniors who do not receive the GIS, the spouse's allowance, the OAS or CPP. In addition, HRDC should prepare a special report, to be tabled in Parliament by October 2002, outlining the progress it has made to address the GIS under-subscription problem.

After having been introduced, having received second reading on January 29 and having been referred to committee, the bill is now coming back to the House to be passed. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that Bill C-36 will make it easier for disadvantaged seniors to have access to the guaranteed income supplement program by allowing for automatic application renewal and payment of the guaranteed income supplement to couples on the basis of only one spouse's income tax return.

The Bloc Québécois also recognizes that Bill C-36 allows seniors who suffer a sudden reduction in employment or pension income during a fiscal year to submit a GIS application based on an estimate of their employment and pension income.

The Bloc Québécois further recognizes that Bill C-36 amends and fine-tunes certain sections of the Old Age Security Act in order to deal with inconsistencies that it contained.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that Bill C-36 introduces certain measures amending the Canada Pension Plan, which does not at all affect Quebec and its constitutional jurisdictions.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. However, it is opposed to broadening restrictions on new Canadian citizens who have immigrated to this country. To the Bloc Québécois, there cannot be different classes of Canadian citizens, regardless of how they came to be here. Every citizen has access to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc had also recommended that the committee look at requiring the government to pay full retroactive guaranteed income supplement benefits, rather than a maximum of 11 months, as provided under the legislation on guaranteed income supplement and allowance benefits. This would mean a retroactive payment covering the whole eligibility period.

The Bloc also had reservations about the discretionary power, about waiving the requirement for a renewal application for the guaranteed income supplement and allowance benefits, once an initial application has been made. The relevant wording reads, “The Minister may waive the requirement”. We wanted it to read, “The Minister must waive the requirement”, but that was rejected by the committee.

The Bloc Québécois will ask that the Privacy Commissioner testify with regard to the expanding the list of third parties to which the contributor's personal information may be forwarded. We will also ensure that amendments to the current regulations will not restrict access to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc Québécois will continue its longstanding battle with the federal government to ensure that it puts in place all the necessary elements to allow seniors entitled to the guaranteed income supplement to have access to it. With regard to interest charged on overpayments, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the bill treats all taxpayers equally.

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.

In conclusion—as I know that my time is almost up—there has been progress. In fact, we are pleased to recognize that progress has been made on several points.

After the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was tabled in 2001, forms were simplified and sent by the Department of Human Resources and Social Development to pensioners who might be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. Seniors only have to sign the document to give the Department of Human Resources and Social Development permission to examine their file.

Renewal application forms are now more readily available, especially since they are found on the Department of Human Resources and Social Development website. Unfortunately, seniors do not often use the Internet.

There is much more to be done. It is deplorable that, for all these years, the successive Liberal and Conservative governments neglected, muzzled and ignored the most vulnerable seniors in our society. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois was there to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors were heard by the government. Through its numerous interventions in the House, in committees and in the media, the Bloc Québécois was able to keep the spotlight on a group of individuals excluded from the priorities of the Liberal and Conservative governments.

Some progress has been made. However, these few measures will not silence the Bloc. We will continue to fight the federal government in order to obtain justice for all those individuals who made it possible for Quebeckers and Canadians to form the nations that they have become.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak to the bill. I would also like to report on my homework over the last two weeks listening to seniors and persons with disabilities who are indeed the experts on what the issue of old age security actually means, and what a fair and meaningful pension plan would mean for them.

It is quite interesting in terms of the housekeeping details that are in the bill that most people are very comfortable with this. People should not have to reapply for GIS, as we have known and as the important work of Richard Shillington has demonstrated. However, there are still too many seniors entitled to things such as guaranteed income supplement who are not yet receiving it.

We need to not only put things in a bill that explain a different entitlement, but we need to ensure that we are doing the outreach and apply sufficient resources to the department and regional offices to find those seniors who are entitled to these benefits but not yet receiving them. It includes helping them understand the importance of filling out their tax returns such that they can not only receive the guaranteed income supplement but also their GST rebate and a number of other things that are part of our security net here in Canada.

It was very inspiring however at the end of last week to be in St. John's, Newfoundland at the fabulous Aging Issues Network Conference funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada. It was interesting that the issues around seniors and issues they care about keep coming up across this country. I will particularly this afternoon refer to what I have learned in Yukon, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was exciting to see the original overview for the workshop in St. John's. It began with a quote from the Minister of Ageing in South Australia who said: “We must stop thinking old. The ageing of many countries...is one of the most significant social trends of our time...it gives us a unique opportunity”.

This was brilliantly described by the Liberal renewal commission in Dr. Austin Bowman's report in his summary where he defined seniors as persons 65 of age and older, which is indeed 13% of the Canadian population and represents about four million individuals.

It is estimated, as the hon. member for Mississauga South said, that these seniors over the next years will comprise 25% of our population. They have accumulated a vast wealth of skills, experience and maturity which represent an enormous investment on the part of their employers and Canadian society in general. These extensive human resources should be available for the betterment of Canadian society and with declining birth rates may be required to keep our Canadian economy valued.

We know, however, that the security of seniors across this country is not even. In certain provinces only seniors already receiving GIS get the benefit of a pharma care program. It is only in Atlantic Canada where there is no such thing as a catastrophic drug plan. Seniors worry about different aspects of their security in different ways across the country.

The theme I heard most often was on the issue of affordable housing and the kinds of changes that would be required. There is a real need of an innovative and creative method of marrying the need for affordable housing with the need for social inclusion.

We know that social inclusion is now as important as smoking in terms of health outcomes. When I was in medical school, we referred to them as shut-ins, people who actually did not have the ability to get out and be with one another. Those people's health outcomes are indeed diminished.

I was sad to hear from the seniors in Whitehorse, at a time when they were celebrating the Canada Games, that a group of them had come together with the Legion and with other NGOs to buy an old hotel for them to all to come together. Somehow the financing fell through for that. Yet, it is something that again is the best of public policy, designed and created bottom up to meet the actual needs of these seniors who wanted to be able to live downtown close to supports and services. Somehow we do not have the flexibility to fund the kinds of things that clearly the market on its own has not been able to do.

In Alberta it was astounding to see what has happened after years of an ideology that thought the market would fix everything. I actually found a lack of housing even for those who are working. That is extraordinary. I met with healthy, strapping paraplegics who, because of a lack of supports and services, have had to sleep all night in their wheelchairs because there was no attendant care to get them to bed at night or to get them dressed in the morning. This is inexcusable in a country with our wealth. It is unbelievable that the downgrading of what was a long term care approach is now called assisted living. Seniors are now asked to pay for being fed, or clothed or helped into a wheelchair, or even charged to be wheeled down to the dining hall.

We need to provide supports and services for people with disabilities and for people who have given so much to our country and who are now senior citizens. How on earth can these people who have lived through the depression make a decision as to whether they can afford a bath this week or whether feeding is medically necessary? This was totally shocking to me and shocking to the very engaged seniors that I was able to meet with in both Calgary and in Edmonton.

The Kirby Centre in Calgary is probably one of the best examples of seniors coming together in the country. It started as a little kiosk. Seniors did not know what level of government to turn to. There is now a thousand people going through this centre daily, the first ever elder abuse hostel in Canada. This is a spectacular example.

However, when I talked to the people there, they know that so much more has to be done in terms of the role of government in people's lives. It is a positive role that must be there when the market chooses to build condos instead of affordable housing and when there is just not a sufficient ability to deliver supportive housing.

While I was in Edmonton I heard that the government had cancelled the national advisory committee on aging. This is extraordinary. It has been one of the most important pieces of social science research that goes on every year. It prepares our seniors report card and does studies on Alzheimer's. We know that we have to have evidence based policy. We have to have the ability to fund what works and stop funding what does not work. Without the kind of research that the national advisory committee on aging has done, we know again that we are at tremendous risk in terms of appointed committees saturated with ideology. We are going to make bad decisions that really are not in the interests of Canadians.

I was astounded also to hear from some of the seniors in Alberta who expressed their concern about not only affordable housing but also the status of poverty. Alberta has the greatest gap between the rich and the poor. Some 42% Calgarians are still living at the poverty line. This is appalling. Some have full time jobs and are living in shelters with a packsack and an alarm clock in order to go to work. This is just unacceptable in our fabulous country.

However, I was heartened when I went to Atlantic Canada and met with the people at Mount Saint Vincent and at WorkBridge and other wonderful places in Halifax West. They really did make me feel that we had a chance of moving to evidence based policy and looking at some of the real needs of seniors in our country in terms of what old age security actually means. There is no question about the fact that old age security, in the definition of the seniors of this country, means having a roof over their heads.

I was very pleased to see a tremendous project under way at Mount Saint Vincent with the seniors housing and support services survey, which I think is one of the best pieces of work that I have seen in a long time. This was being done under principal investigator Don Shiner. The survey asks the kinds of questions we need to ask. It is exactly what we will require as a country to go forward. I hope these excellent pieces of work like this one funded by SSHRC will be rolled out across the country.

I was also pleased to meet with the people there who are working so hard on the social economy and sustainability in the Atlantic node governance structure. These people are working on important things like empowerment, inclusion, policy analysis in mapping, food security, natural resources, measuring and financing the social economy, communication, and the way this kind of bottom-up understanding works. This is being done under the leadership of Dr. Leslie Brown. She, like so many of us, is astounded that the Conservative government took the $100 million that was destined for actually doing work on the social economy and exploring how seniors and persons with disabilities and many other Canadians could start contributing to the economy of this country and feel the full citizenship for which we hope for all seniors and persons with disabilities.

It was so amazing to see the kind of work on housing and what we learned at the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. The were terrific committee members, one being Wendy Lill. We heard about the kinds of things that we need to do in terms of having some lifelong housing standards across this country so certification for developers could be put on things that will be good for people's lives, such as having a 36 inch door so a wheelchair can get through, one accessible bathroom, one floor, and one bedroom. The idea is that there is a standard that exists, that people have agreed upon and that could be very easily rolled out as a national standard so that people would aspire in the development of the kinds of units that people could stay in for the rest of their lives and thus have supports and services come to them.

Since 1973, with the first “Beyond Shelter” report, we have known that we have so much room to work. No matter what we do with today's bill on making income security a bit easier, we know that people's disposable income still is only there once they have a roof over their head. This was described often and poignantly wherever I went across this country over the past couple of weeks. It is amazing to see the kind of spectacular leadership like that of Sean Wiltshire of the Avalon Employment agency in Newfoundland and Labrador and the amazing work being done, both on accountability and on disability-related supports, at the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities.

To go back to the conference in St. John's last Thursday, working groups identified principles that I think all of us ascribe to, that is, that there has to be dignity for Canadians and that we have to find a way to understand that this is almost measurable. Mary Anne Burke, at the Global Forum for Health Research in Geneva, is looking at bias-free frameworks that could deal with things like gender and ageism and whether persons with disabilities are treated with dignity in society. Are they afforded self-fulfilment? Is there a real outreach in terms of social inclusion and an understanding of their need for independence? Is there also an understanding of the need for safety and security? Above all, is the Canadian value system fair?

It was very interesting to see their priority directions in terms of, number one, recognition of older persons, their value and worth, their social inclusion, and the fight against ageism. Their number two priority direction was in celebrating diversity. It was about understanding a lifespan perspective, a language and a culture. It was about understanding the role of elders in regard to our aboriginal peoples, the role that geography plays, the role for persons with disabilities and in gender. It was about understanding that this diversity needs to be celebrated and adds to the richness of the tapestry of this country, but also it was the understanding that one size will not fit all and that again there needs to be the kind of flexibility that allows the diversity to be celebrated.

In policy direction number three, they talked about supportive communities. Again, whether that is Jane Jacobs talking about neighbourliness or Robert Putnam talking about social capital, we know that in communities we need to be looking after one another. To me, the number one example of that was how upset we were in 2000 that Canada had been rated only thirtieth in the WHO standings on health systems performance and in health outcomes. Yet France had been named number one.

Then, in 2003, we felt terrible about the 44 people who died with SARS and also about the 14,000 people who died in the heat wave in France. These people were mainly elder women in attic apartments without a system for health to actually bring them together. Since that time, France really has moved on how to build systems for health that have inclusion but also include the kind of safety and security needed for people in a time of emergency.

It means that we need to have learned from Eric Klinenberg's work on the heat wave in 1995, in his anatomy of a social disaster, wherein they mapped Chicago and saw that the rich people did well because they had air conditioning and the middle class did well because they had minivans and could go camping. The poor people died, except for the poor people in the Latino community who all knew one another and looked after one another. They even looked after the Polish seniors who had not yet moved out of that neighbourhood. That is what bottom-up and community based solutions mean. That is really the role of all levels of government coming together.

When we talk about a priority direction of supportive communities, it does mean that a lot of these solutions will be on the ground, but it also means that municipal and regional governments need the help of provincial and territorial governments and the federal government to make all of these happen together around transportation and housing, around working together in age-friendly communities, in literacy, education and communication, and in dealing appropriately with the unpaid caregivers.

It is interesting that in today's bill we are talking about financial security, but to these people that was the fourth priority direction. I think this speaks to the fact that we have done pretty well in terms of some of the financial security of most seniors, although we still have work to do. In terms of income, financial planning and gender differences, there is still a long way to go. Certainly the Money Matters program developed at the Kerby Centre, which actually helps the banking industry deal with the abuse of seniors, has been very important in terms of making sure that seniors keep the money they have.

It would be a whole different speech on health and well-being. At almost any meeting with seniors, three-quarters to fourth-fifths of the meeting will be on the issue of health and health care. I think we need to make sure from falls programs to making sure they get medication and end of life care. There are many things that are their security around these issues, but there are also dental care, vision care and all the things that we know we still need to work on. I hope that over this next little while their last priority, which was around employment, education and research, will go on in terms of how we train more people to be comfortable working with seniors, to be really good at it and to care.

Again, the conclusion was that of Cicero, who said that it is not old age that is at fault but our attitude toward it. I hope we know that we still have a great deal of work to do, even after today's bill.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time today with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Last June, the NDP member for Hamilton Mountain introduced a seniors charter of rights. We are very proud and we want to congratulate her for that work. That charter of rights was supported by the government. The charter was passed by a vote of 231 to 52. It was a landslide.

One of the rights outlined in that charter is the right of all seniors to income security. Yet, despite Parliament's clear message, this is the first legislative initiative that the Conservatives have introduced to enact any of the rights that the seniors charter guarantees. Unfortunately, Bill C-36 does not even deal with the real causes of poverty among Canadian seniors.

To date, the Conservatives have been disinclined to help seniors living in poverty. Of the few attempts that even come close to addressing the income of seniors, the two trumpeted most are the increase of $2,000 in the pension tax credit and pension income splitting. But who benefits from that tax credit or income splitting? Not a single senior whose only income is CPP, OAS and GIS. The tax credit applies only to private pensions, so the seniors who need the money most receive no help from their government, none at all.

Currently about 130,000 eligible seniors receive GIS, the guaranteed income supplement. About 80% of those missing out are women, mostly women who are very elderly. In addition, there are also about 55,000 seniors who are missing out on CPP retirement benefits.

Interestingly, there are virtually no eligible seniors without QPP. That is because officials in Quebec identify those eligible seniors and ensure they apply for their benefits.

If a senior realizes that he or she qualifies, the current legislation for OAS, GIS and CPP provides only 11 months of retroactive payments unless governments provided erroneous advice or there was an administrative error. Years of income may be lost.

To add insult to injury, Ottawa does not pay interest on the retroactive CPP payments, even when those cheques are for lost benefits due to administrative error. Again, in Quebec, QPP pays retroactive benefits for up to five years, including interest.

There is also precedent in the rest of Canada, where long periods of retroactivity are allowed for other programs. Income tax returns can be re-filed for several years to make claims that have been missed. As well, GST credits are paid retroactively for more than 11 months.

Why are seniors penalized more than others?

About 38% of seniors receive GIS. The majority of seniors who retire without an employer pension plan receive GIS. RRSPs can be a terrible investment for many Canadians who do not have a pension plan, but for those seniors on GIS, their income includes earnings, RRSP withdrawals and CPP benefits, which can result in an effective tax rate of 50% to 100%. I repeat: 50% to 100%. This occurs because GIS is reduced by 50¢ for every dollar in income, including RRSP withdrawals, and that income is still taxable.

The structure of the current clawbacks for GIS makes it virtually impossible for GIS recipients to enjoy the benefits of any RRSP savings they make. Most of the funds will be clawed back in the form of GIS reductions and income tax.

Similarly, if a senior is employed, this will also lead to a GIS clawback as the money will still be subject to income tax and payroll taxes. Thus, under the current regulations, employment is unlikely to improve the standard of living of the poorest seniors.

Those dependent on OAS and GIS are condemned to live below the poverty line. In 2004 about one-third of seniors, mostly single women, were dependent on OAS and GIS for an average income of about $12,400. The Statistics Canada low income cut-off is approximately $17,000.

The particular impact on women was outlined in the Ottawa Citizen just last month. The paper stated:

Many elderly Canadians, especially women, are losing thousands of dollars in income because the federal government bars them from collecting all the Canada Pension Plan benefits they have earned....[T]he government should be doing more to reach out to seniors who are eligible for benefits, but who, for reasons ranging from ill health to illiteracy, might not realize it or have the wherewithal to apply. Women are hardest hit because officials often assume that elderly women were stay-at-home wives and mothers, and therefore do not check to see whether they are eligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits when they are applying for old age pension or the guaranteed income supplement.

I would like to note that in particular, unattached senior women remain very vulnerable. They make up 60% of seniors living below the poverty line. In 2003, according to a Government of Canada report, 154,000 unattached senior women lived in poverty. Let me repeat that, 154,000 senior women lived in poverty.

The GIS, which is supposed to help, forces many seniors, especially those who are unattached, into poverty. I want to emphasize again that a single senior receiving OAS and GIS is forced to live on about $1,000 per month. That is just not acceptable. One thousand dollars a month simply does not do it.

There are many reasons why senior women end up living in poverty or near poverty. Women's unpaid work makes their risk of poverty higher and results in less access to private pensions. Senior women receive smaller pension incomes because of the wage difference between men and women. Most divorced women do not claim a portion of their former spouse's pension, even though they are entitled to it.

Immigrant women are particularly vulnerable. Many over the age of 65 who have lived in Canada for less than 10 years are without any income at all. Approximately 65% of GIS beneficiaries are women. Women are concentrated in low wage and part time jobs where there is rarely a pension available. Because many retirement plans do not compensate for absences to raise children or look after sick relatives, women are left out once again. It is usually women who do the caregiving.

The ratio of male to female earnings tells a story of persistent systemic inequality between male and female incomes whether from employment or pensions. The first step to ending the poverty cycle for senior women and men is ensuring access to safe, affordable and accessible housing. If a person spends the majority of his or her income on his or her place of residence, this leaves little money for food, medication and other necessities, thus forcing many into the poverty cycle.

In 2001 more than half of seniors living on their own in rental accommodations were paying more than 30% of their income on housing. In particular, single women were more likely to be living in substandard conditions because of those low incomes. If housing costs are tied to one's income level and not to market value, then and only then does one have a chance to break out of poverty and live in dignity.

The cost of housing across Canada is on the rise. Last year housing costs were up 13%. With no new affordable housing money in the foreseeable future, many Canadians, especially senior Canadians, run the risk of becoming house poor. I hear from my constituents in London—Fanshawe about this very dilemma all the time. Many of them are energy poor because of the increase in the cost of utilities. When housing costs are higher than 30% of a person's income, the person is indeed condemned to live a life below the poverty level.

Over four million seniors rely on the OAS, GIS and CPP for their income. While past changes and increases in payment amounts have helped to alleviate some of the poverty faced by these seniors, there are still too many falling between the cracks.

Bill C-36 was an excellent opportunity for the government to fix many of the mistakes left over by the Liberals, but it fails to do so. If we want to do more than just pay lip service to the rights of seniors, we need to enshrine the seniors' charter. We need to explore all possible means of creating better income security for those who built our country.

There is great potential in Bill C-36. I hope all parties will come together and amend this bill so that seniors have the opportunity to live in dignity.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's very clear explanation about the need for the federal government to get serious about dealing with the issue of senior citizens who are falling into poverty.

I have noticed that the issue of seniors' poverty has not been discussed here. For the last month or so we have watched the stringed marionette to the Liberal Party stand up and deliver the lines that have come down from head office about fighting for what they say is the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. I wonder what is so vulnerable that the Liberals would stand up en masse. For anyone who was caught in the income trust bubble, clearly what is most vulnerable is the credibility of the member for Wascana who created that outrageous bubble in the first place.

There are other members in the House who are not standing up for senior citizens, who are not talking about the families who are falling into poverty, who have no interest in speaking about fairness, but they seem to be more interested in the bruised ego of the member for Wascana and the fact that people got caught up in an income trust bubble created by the Liberal Party. In light of that fact, what steps do we have to take to restore some credibility as politicians to our senior citizens, to the people who are slipping into poverty to say that we really do hear them, that we are serious about it and we are not just playing political games?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the seniors' charter is the answer. Once again I want to congratulate my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for bringing that to the House. Clearly the Parliament of Canada supported it because it saw the value in it. We need to move forward on that. We need a government that is willing to look at that charter and say that seniors matter, their dignity matters and the fact that they built this nation matters to Parliament, to the nation.

Income security is first and foremost. We must make sure that seniors have the kind of income security to enable them to meet the rent, to pay the utility bills and to have the medication they need. We should extend that. We need pharmacare so that seniors do not have to choose between buying groceries and filling their prescriptions. We need home care so that seniors who want to remain in their homes can have access to the kind of care that prolongs their independent living. We need long term care. The government has an opportunity today to bring in the kind of measures so that seniors will not have to worry about what happens when their health will no longer allow them to live in their own homes.

My own family has experienced this. My father suffered a second stroke and he needs long term care. Could he find it close to home at an affordable price? No. He had to travel far out of town and my mother is faced with the reality of making a trip of more than one hour every day just to visit him. There will be nothing available to accommodate him in their community for at least the next two and one-half years. That is wrong. It is unethical. This is a nation that is great because of its seniors and we have abandoned them.

Yes, there is much we could do. We have not seen much of it from Parliament. We have not seen much of it in terms of previous governments. It is time. We have an opportunity and we need to do it now.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, Western Arctic is a riding that has mostly rural and remote communities. There are many elders who have not had regular job experience that would allow them to build a comfortable pension. They live in communities where the cost of living is 200% higher than that of most of our cities.

The problem that seniors have identified to me over and over again is that when they do a little extra work, maybe go out trapping for a few furs or something else in the community that allows them to make a few extra dollars, it all gets taxed away from them. It gets taken out of their guaranteed income supplement. This is a huge problem throughout northern Canada. How can we address this problem? How can we give these people some relief? Seniors just want to work to make a little bit extra to pay the bills. It is very expensive for them to live.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, we end the clawbacks. There are so many seniors in rural and remote communities who, because of low incomes over their lifetimes, have to supplement their incomes in their retirement years.

The government once again has the opportunity to do the right thing. I hope that today's budget will show that the Conservatives have been paying attention to the fact that our seniors are in desperate need. This is the time to come forward with aid so that seniors in all parts of the country have access to the kind of income security that would allow them to live with dignity in their retirement years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36.

Although this has been termed a housekeeping bill, it is unfortunate that we did not take this opportunity to examine some of the other issues that are facing seniors in this country. It is unfortunate that we did not take the steps the NDP proposed in the seniors' charter to address some of the very real issues that confront seniors in our country today.

Canadians are worried about a number of different issues. Canadians are worried, for example, about the solvency of their pension plans. In the previous Parliament a substantial amount of work had been done to look at protecting those pension plans for seniors. One proposal was that if a company should be so unfortunate as to go bankrupt, the protection of workers' pensions needed to be front and centre.

The NDP had argued very strongly for much stronger measures than actually came forward in former C-55. One step which parliamentarians and I am sure all Canadians would support would be to make sure that workers' pensions are protected, and that when a company went bankrupt, the workers' pensions would be the first to be paid and would not be somewhere far down the line.

In addition, we have discovered that since the mid-1990s, seniors' incomes have reached a ceiling. The gap between seniors' revenue and that of other Canadians is increasing. We have talked about fairness and affordability. We have talked about a prosperity gap. Seniors are truly facing that prosperity gap.

According to the government's own National Advisory Council on Aging, between 1997 and 2003, the mean income of senior households increased by $4,100 while the average income of other Canadian households increased by $9,000. The situation is even worse for seniors who are living on their own. Sometimes people only pay attention to numbers. In total, over a quarter of a million seniors live under the low income cut-off, or as we also say, below the poverty line.

There are many groups of people who are adversely affected as they age. One such group of people who are adversely affected is women. There is a recent Ottawa Citizen article entitled, “Late CPP applicants lose thousands in benefits: Women hit hardest by 11-month limit on retroactive payments”. I am going to quote from that article because it is helpful when there are other words out there besides those of parliamentarians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time has arrived for statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague. I understand that this is a debate that engages the entire House and I too would like to commend my colleague, who has done this work for 13 years, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the motion for third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, be deemed carried on division.

I recognize that there are many people in the House who would like to speak to the concurrence motion before us. I am very cognizant of the fact that there will be a budget tabled today. It is not our intention at all to in any way delay Bill C-36, but we obviously recognize how important this concurrence motion and the whole issue of fetal alcohol syndrome are, not only to the House but to all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)