Bill C-36 (Historical)

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

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

Canada Pension Plan

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

moved that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in my new role for the first time to talk to Bill C-36, a bill that proposes amendments to two of our foundational social programs, the Canada pension plan and old age security.

At the very outset, I want to begin by thanking the opposition parties for their support for the legislation. I think it enjoys broad support because it really does strengthen both the Canada pension plan, through improvements to allow people to get their disability pension, and old age security, through improvements so people will automatically receive guaranteed income supplement as their income rises and falls. I will say more to that in just a moment.

This is part of a larger agenda the government has to affirm our support for the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. These are extraordinarily important parts of Canada's social safety net. Even more to the point, they really do in a way show our government's commitment to seniors and our determination to ensure we do everything we possibly can to stand up for Canadian seniors who have done so much to build our country.

It is no exaggeration to say that because of the efforts of those who have gone before us we stand today in this great chamber. This country is built on a tradition of supporting human rights and democracy and ensuring we do everything we can so all Canadians get a fair shake, that they get an opportunity. For those people who, for whatever reason, can no longer participate in the labour force, they will still enjoy some support from the government and will have a decent standard of living.

I think fair-minded members on all sides of the House understand the importance of those kinds of social programs, and that is certainly true of the new government and the Prime Minister as well. In fact, the Prime Minister has gone to some lengths to underline his support for seniors by appointing a new secretary of state for seniors, Senator Marjorie LeBreton. I am thrilled to be working with her as she works with seniors, listens to their concerns and finds ways to support the programs that serve them.

Before we get into the actual amendments, it is important to point out just how important these programs are. The Canada pension plan today serves three million Canadians. It is one of the cornerstones of our social programming for seniors. The old age security goes to four million Canadians. The guaranteed income supplement goes to 1.5 million low income seniors, who are mostly women.

The Canada pension plan and old age security pays out $50 billion a year. GIS pays out $6.2 billion a year. We understand, as Canada's new government, how important those programs are. We want to build on those programs, make them better and make them stronger so we have them today and in the future. In fact, as I speak of the future, I need to point out that we are facing some big challenges as we go forward today. Roughly 12% of Canadians are seniors. In 25 years those numbers will double. It is very important that we have strong and sustainable social programs going forward.

The point of the amendments today are twofold. We want to modernize and streamline how benefits are delivered, and that really brings me to the first amendment.

The amendment has to do with changing the rules surrounding old age security so when seniors apply for it, they will only ever have to apply once in their life and at the same time will automatically receive the guaranteed income supplement if their income warrants it.

These amendments will change the rules so in the future we will take tax information from peoples' tax forms and use that to help us determine who should get guaranteed income supplement.

Today it works this way. If seniors are a recipient of the guaranteed income supplement and all of a sudden their income rises, making them ineligible for guaranteed income supplement in the following year, they will then have to reapply the year after to qualify if their income falls again.

These changes, supported by my friends in the opposition, will end that, and that is important. Seniors have more important things to do than spend a lot of time filling out paperwork to reapply. In some cases the sad fact is that people do not reapply and do not receive benefits for which they are eligible. These changes will largely end that. It will mean that seniors will automatically requalify should their income fall below that threshold according to their tax information. This is extraordinarily important. This really modernizes an important piece of legislation.

The government acknowledges as well that not everyone fills out a tax form every year. We will continue to do the outreach we are vigorously doing today to ensure that seniors are aware of these programs and that they understand how they work so if they do qualify and have not filled out a tax form, they can still get the guaranteed income supplement.

The other amendment that is very important has to do with the disability portion of Canada pension plan. As we know, the Canada pension plan, through the disability portion, provides thousands and thousands of disabled Canadians with an income supplement, which is critical for them to manage and maintain a lifestyle. The changes that we are proposing in the legislation will make it easier for disabled Canadians to qualify for Canada pension plan disability. As the rule stands today, we have to be contributors for four of the last six years we pay into CPP before our disability makes us unemployable and takes us out of the labour force.

We propose to change that from four years to three years. We project this will bring another 3,700 people into eligibility for Canada pension plan disability by the year of 2010, plus another 1,000 of their children, according to the data we have at present. This will ensure that more people, who cannot qualify because they have been knocked out of the workforce early by their conditions, will now be able to receive this important disability pension. This is a very important step. It demonstrates that Canada's new government is committed to helping people with disabilities.

Not long ago I was in Vancouver where I sought a meeting with Rick Hansen, who is a well known advocate on behalf of disabled Canadians. He was first made famous as the “Man in Motion” when he travelled the world in his wheelchair to draw attention to the devastating impact of spinal injuries. He has since established a foundation and has become a tremendous spokesman and an inspiration for people around the world on issues of disability. He is doing a tremendous job of drawing attention to these issues. He gave me great insight into the challenges that people in the disabled community face, and we will use those to help us guide our government as we move forward.

As someone who represents the community of Medicine Hat, which has twice as many seniors as the national average, I understand the challenges that seniors face. I think all members understand that and appreciate the contributions that the seniors who have gone before us have made. Many of today's seniors are people who have gone through the Great Depression, the second world war, Korea and the social unrest of the 1960s. They have seen and done a lot of things. They have raised families. In many cases they have gone without so their families could have a higher standard of living and a chance to have an education. We really do owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Bill C-36 underlines the importance that the government places on recognizing the contributions of seniors. That along with some of the other steps we have taken to raise the age credit, to allow pension income splitting, to cut the GST are all indications of how important we see the role of seniors in society today. We want to recognize them with this important legislation.

I thank members on all sides for their support of the legislation. I commend the legislation to the House and trust that it will pass quickly so we can deliver these important changes to seniors and to the disabled as soon as possible.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we share in my colleague's, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, recognition of the contribution of the seniors who have, as he has pointed out, played a significant part in the history and the development of Canadian society. They did this at a time when we had many challenges, not only on a global scale, but internationally.

Could he let us know a bit more about how those seniors who worked very hard as individuals, as families, as parents, contributing not only to the next generation but to our country? We have to ensure that tradition is passed on to this generation and the next generation.

Maybe the minister could give us a little more information, fill in a little more about how, as baby boomers move on to become seniors, that will benefit all Canadians?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I state the obvious when I say the contribution of seniors is extraordinarily important, but maybe it is so obvious that sometimes we take it for granted.

We live in the best country in the world. That did not happen by accident. Many countries in the world have a wealth of natural resources, just like this country does. Many countries have enjoyed relative periods of peace, but not every country enjoys the standard of living that this country enjoys. Not every country enjoys a commitment to human rights, democracy and ensuring that we look after our neighbours, like this country does. That reflects the values of the people who went before us. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Any time we make a contribution today to making things better in this world it is because we build on the foundation laid down by the generation that has gone before us.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not like this question and comment period to be solely for friends of the government and government members. That is why it is important that members of the opposition be able to put other questions to the minister concerned.

For the moment, I would like to draw the minister’s attention to a subject that is very important for the people of Quebec and for seniors throughout Canada. I refer to the guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, a great deal of money has been, I would dare to say, withheld and in the end these people have not seen a single penny of this money. But they were entitled to it. Now, I believe that they deserve some social justice. These people who are hard up, who need this money, deserve to recover that money that quite simply passed under their noses.

I would like the new minister responsible for this matter to tell us what he intends to do about the error that was made concerning seniors and the guaranteed income supplement.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously some of the things that have occurred in the past are part of what motivates the legislation. The legislation is really designed to do everything we can to ensure that people who qualify and are entitled to guaranteed income supplement automatically get it.

This will not fix every possible situation where people are entitled to it and do not get it. However, we are taking the most important step we can to reach as many seniors as possible so we do not leave anyone behind who does qualify according to income, but yet, because they are not aware of it, do not apply. This is an important change that starts to address some of my friend's concerns.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of being here for a while is that we get to hear people when they were in different positions in the House of Commons.

I remember when the Reform Party's environment critic said that global warming was a myth. I remember its agriculture critic saying that marketing boards were not a good system for the markets and that we needed to get rid of marketing boards. Those two things have now changed.

I also remember hearing that particular minister, when he was the finance critic for the Reform Party, talking about the Canada pension plan and how it needed to be radically changed or eliminated and maybe let the people use the money they invest in the Canada pension plan in a private RRSP.

Now I hear the minister, on his road to Damascus, saying that the Canada pension plan is a very important vehicle for seniors. I congratulate him for that because he is absolutely correct.

Last year Statistics Canada made an error in calculating the certain percentage of CPP compared to OAS. Many people have been asking whether the government will correct that error and allow the certain percentage of CPP-OAS contributions to increase more than the 0.5% they have received, in fact the 1.5% to the 2% that they have been asking for, which is the correct Statistics Canada figure.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government commitment was to increase these amounts according to the published inflation numbers from Statistics Canada, which is what we have done.

However this government has moved in other ways to ensure that seniors are allowed to keep more of their income. One of the most important changes and one that sometimes people do not consider to be part of social programming is the cut to the GST. Approximately 30% of Canadians who do not pay income tax benefit by the cut in the GST, and that certainly applies to seniors. It goes some distance to helping them cope with the everyday difficulties of making ends meet. That is only one of a number of initiatives that this new government has undertaken, but we are doing what we can to ensure that seniors enjoy a better standard of living.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin today by saying how thrilled I am to have been asked by our leader to assume the position of critic for seniors, Canadians with disabilities and the social economy. Seniors and Canadians with disabilities are some of the most engaged citizens we have in this country. I look forward to working with them and to ensuring the solutions they have been working on for a long time will be presented to the government. In my experience as chair of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities, I hope this can be a non-partisan issue in which we do the most we can for our most vulnerable Canadians.

As is shown by the combination of the bill presented today, the issues around full citizenship, the ability to contribute and the issue around income security are things shared both by seniors and persons with disabilities. It will be extraordinarily important for us to understand the complexity of this and the need for the government, the provinces and the territories to work together. I think all of us who have worked in this area know that one of the real problems has been the gridlock involved in the fact that income security and human rights can be seen as a federal issue, but the supports and services are very much provincial and territorial. It becomes a real problem if we cannot work across government departments and across jurisdictions to do what the people who need us most know needs to be done.

The Canada pension plan is the basis of Canada's retirement income system. As the minister has said, there were many irritants and difficulties in the administration of that. We are grateful to the minister for bringing in these changes that will make the application of these benefits much simpler. As we know, it provides the retirement pension, disability benefits, benefits for survivors, children's benefits and a death benefit. As the minister alluded to, in 2005-06, four million people received benefits totalling $25 billion.

We know that the Liberal Party is the party of income security. Lester Pearson and Paul Martin Senior brought in the CPP program in the first place. It was the policies of Prime Minister Chrétien and the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, that stabilized the pension funds and guaranteed a secure public pension system for the next 75 years.

It is also important that we mention the issue of guaranteed income supplement, old age security and the retirement benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans which provide our senior citizens with monthly taxable benefits. For seniors without other income, the amounts received from these programs are, unfortunately, very modest.

The guaranteed income supplement was first introduced by the Liberal government under Lester Pearson in 1967 to help improve living standards for lower income seniors. The GIS is a monthly benefit paid to residents of Canada who receive full or partial OAS pensions and who have little or no other income.

I am pleased to see the proposal to waive the requirement for a renewal application for the GIS once an initial application has been made. Many seniors forget to reapply for their GIS or are late in their reapplication which results in a decrease in income for the following year. Administrative process should not be an obstacle to deserved benefits and I am glad to see that the government has recognized that.

I am proud to state that the Liberal government increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors by $36 per month for single seniors and $58 per month for couples. This was a $2.7 billion investment that directly benefited 1.6 billion Canadian seniors. Unfortunately, as all parties in this House have recognized, there are many difficulties in ensuring that all seniors who qualify for GIS apply for it and receive it.

Many seniors fail to apply for GIS because they have no taxable income or they have health problems, mental or physical limitations, or literacy and language barriers. In fact, estimates by policy analyst, Richard Shillington, in 2001, with the help of Susan Pigott at St. Christopher House in Toronto, suggested that 320,000 eligible Canadians were not receiving the GIS and associated spousal and widow's allowances.

Under the last Liberal government there was a fantastic partnership between Human Resource Development Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency which helped provincial organizations and grassroots volunteers to educate seniors about the GIS. There is no point having a program that seniors do not know they can access. It is the responsibility of governments to ensure everyone entitled to a program gets what they are entitled to, which means serious efforts must be made for outreach and education.

I hope the government will undertake a similar initiative to ensure that seniors are knowledgeable about the supports available to them. Failing to reach low income elderly people with funds that can make the difference between comfort and privation is a serious concern.

In 1997, the Canada pension plan was restructured to respond to the growing needs of an aging population, to ensure its viability and to stabilize contribution rates. Experts said that, as a result of those changes, the CPP would be viable for at least another 75 years.

As a family doctor, I can testify as to how important the changes are in this bill in terms of the flexibility in the Canada pension plan disability. It is a huge deal to someone who has become slightly disabled and whose attachment to the workforce has become less regular. The difference between qualifying with three out of the past six years as opposed to the previous four out of the past six years is huge to so many Canadians.

The Liberal record on income security is clear. Although I am supportive of Bill C-36, we must hold the government to account on this issue.

If the Canadian retirement income system is to work, it is essential that everyone contribute as much as he or she can for as long as he or she wants to or can.

Afterwards, when it is time to rely on the community, everyone will be confident that he or she will be considered and treated with respect and dignity; and each person will have a real sense of belonging.

That means that we have to avoid bureaucratic nightmares. Canadians must be able to receive what they are entitled to without a lot of administrative red tape.

We on this side are supportive of all of the proposed amendments: the simplification of access to and delivery of benefits of the OAS, the ongoing renewal, the agreements to co-administer similar provincial benefits to simplify the reporting of income for couples and seniors and the OAS-consistent benefit entitlements, the OAS clarity of legislation and the proposed amendments to the Canada pension plan, both the full funding and the CPP tri-annual review, the long term contributors Canada pension plan disability, and the CPP business transformation amendment, the administrative amendment as well as the proposed common OAS-CPP amendments.

The provision for electronic services is hugely important now and the charging of interest, I think, is an important provision, as well as the penalty provisions and the information sharing.

In 1918, Dr. Charles Hastings, the physician responsible for public health for the city of Toronto, said at the American Public Health Association that:

Every nation that permits people to remain under the fetters of preventable disease and permits social conditions to exist that make it impossible for them to be properly fed, clothed and housed so as to maintain a high degree of resistance and physical fitness; and, who endorses a wage that does not afford sufficient revenue for the home, a revenue that will make possible the development of a sound mind and body, is trampling on a primary principle of democracy.

That being said, we know that both seniors and persons with disabilities are still fighting the major challenge of poverty. Income security programs must ensure that income is secure. It is extraordinarily important that when we are evaluating these income security programs we are always asking the question: does this Canadian feel that his or her income is secure and that he or she will be able to continue with his or her housing?

I think it is really important that we continue to listen to fabulous organizations like the National Advisory Council on Aging and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. These partnerships have been very important in setting the priorities from the bottom up and in listening to the Canadians who will be most affected by the policies. I believe the bill today shows that the government is listening, or at least is doing what we as a government have heard before.

With seniors the fastest growing age group in the country and the increase in their numbers in the last 10 years being enough to populate mid-sized Canadian cities, we have to understand that we also must look carefully at the disaggregated data in terms of where poverty exists. And the poverty exists for women.

The Daily, Women in Canada 2005 published July 10, 2006, reported as follows:

Older women tend to have lower incomes than men because they participate less in the paid labour force, and, if they were employed, their wages were less on average. In 2004, about one in five senior women had never worked outside the home. Further, because women live longer they are at greater risk of running out of savings over their lifetimes.

According to a new study, senior women suffer much more financially from widowhood than do senior men. Over a 10-year period, senior widows saw their income decrease in the five years after the death of their husbands, while widowers` income increased in the five years after the loss of their wife.

It is going to be extraordinarily important as we go forward to make sure that we continue to bring together these uncoordinated income based programs, according to the National Advisory Committee on Aging and its report, “Aging in poverty in Canada”. It is this multitude of uncoordinated federal, provincial and territorial income based programs that is a nightmare for our seniors.

At one time, my twinned riding was Calgary Centre. There, we can look at the Kerby Centre and how it began by having a kiosk that seniors could come to in order to find out what level of government handled each program. If we look at that centre, we can begin to see that if we create programs from the bottom up and listen to seniors, we can start to bring these things together, as I hope this bill begins to do today.

In the worst case scenario, sometimes the cumulative effect of additional income may well be a net loss of an income. Seniors with low incomes are trapped due to the disincentives mentioned. They are discouraged from earning additional income to make their lives more enjoyable, or indeed, they may no longer qualify for subsidized housing or for the additional benefit. I think it is extraordinarily important that we as governments and as Parliament understand that the devil is in the details and that the net losses or the incomes from our programs have very real people attached to them in terms of their stories and whether they are actually better off or worse off. It is extraordinarily important that we listen again to these people who know best and hear their priorities for action.

The National Council on Aging has said that we must increase the GIS so that the combined GIS and OAS benefits are equal to or greater than the low income cut-off. We must correct the GIS shortcomings and decrease the number of late applicants and not unduly penalize them.

We must, as we have said, improve the coordination of income based programs and ensure automatic or compulsory sharing of pension rights under the Canada pension plan, employee pension funds and retirement savings plans following divorce or legal separation.

Again, our partnership with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities brings to our attention the fact that, with the aging of the population, people with disabilities make up a growing proportion of the Canadian population. One-third of aboriginal Canadians are living with a disability. Canadians with disabilities are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than other Canadians and they face exclusion from quality education, employment and participation in their communities.

The first step in combating poverty and exclusion is to ensure that people have access to disability related supports and services. This is something that we as parliamentarians and the federal government need to do in partnership with our provincial and territorial partners. This is just too complex for us to allow people to fall through the cracks and for us not to work together to understand that it is only in consultation with persons with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities that we are going to get this right.

CPP disability deals only with Canadians who had a previous attachment to the workforce. We learned in our subcommittee that to go forward we need to ask, first, if a person can work and, second, whether that person would be able to work with appropriate training or education. If the answer to both these questions is no, then the federal government needs to work together with the provinces and territories and find a secure income for these people. CPP disability was only ever designed as an adjunct and it is still only those who had a previous attachment to the workforce who qualify.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Association for Community Living are calling on the federal government to show committed leadership and principle to overcome poverty and the exclusion of Canadians with disabilities.

Again, it is so important. I have some concerns that both the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance do not understand how important that technical advisory committee was on things like disability tax credits. To have disbanded the advisory committee that we fought so hard to put in place means that we will get it wrong when it comes to coordinating the net benefit to Canadians with disabilities.

The technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities has said:

Going Forward...Priority should be given to expenditure programs rather than tax measures to target new funding where the need is greatest.

The technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities, which was eliminated by the minister, conducted consultations with provincial and territorial administrations and the community of persons with disabilities.

It is really important to listen to them in terms of how they would evaluate their success. I believe they are asking us to look forward. They are asking us to reduce by half the annual income gap between Canadians with and without disabilities, to reduce by half the poverty rate of adults with disabilities, to reduce by half the labour market participation gap between Canadians with and without disabilities, and to reduce by half the non-reimbursed costs faced by persons with disabilities.

As we go forward, I encourage the minister to look at the extremely important and extraordinarily good report of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities from the 37th Parliament and see what we learned in our report entitled “Listening to Canadians”. There were eight recommendations. I hope the minister will look at those recommendations and will bring together the kind of flexibility that it is going to take to actually incorporate into our society persons with cyclical diseases like mental illness, HIV-AIDS and MS.

There is a lot more to do, because we have to work together on the quality of life of all Canadians, on their dignity and respect. How we treat our most vulnerable is indeed the measure of a society. Together with the expertise of the seniors and the persons with disabilities of this country, I hope we will go forward. This bill is just one tiny step.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech and also for supporting this very important bill. As I listened to the member go through the different points on why she was supporting Bill C-36, I could not help but think that she certainly does understand how important this bill is.

Bill C-36 really takes us forward in serving our seniors in the future with some of the changes that are being made. Albeit some are technical, they will certainly make a difference.

Most of all, we are talking about some of the seniors who, unfortunately, we find difficult to reach with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. The member spoke to that. I would like to know if she has any suggestions on how we can reach the people who do not know about the guaranteed income supplement. We know that because this is income tested, we can use Revenue Canada, but I am wondering if she can make some suggestions as to how we reach the percentage of persons who are not able to get the guaranteed income supplement because they do not know it is available.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is now evidence to show that if we do everything we can to get every Canadian to file an income tax return, we could then find out who is entitled. That is because of this agreed upon partnership between the tax system and HRSD. I think that becomes a really important partnership, but I also think that in terms of the community we have come to understand that social isolation is as detrimental to Canadians' health as smoking,

We must do whatever we can to get seniors participating in places like St. Christopher House or the Kerby Centre in Calgary, the places that have the supports and services. If we can get seniors connected in the community, not only is it good for their health, but it is good for their income in terms of how they then come to find out about these things they are properly entitled to.

I think that it is probably that two-way approach we need. One way would be to encourage all Canadians to file an income tax return, because they may be surprised and get something back. As well, we must really, throughout the country, try to do everything we can to give this sense of belonging that we know is extraordinarily important for peoples' health, particularly their mental health and well-being.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and he startled me somewhat.

I do not know if the same thing happened in the rest of Canada, but I do know that, in Quebec in particular, when the situation arose because the government did not wish to identify the individuals and the research regarding the guaranteed income supplement--which deprived many seniors of income to which they were entitled--we did everything to contact them. I wonder if my colleague agrees with me in this regard.

I also wonder what solutions will be adopted to ensure that seniors who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement will receive it. Although I am very concerned about the guaranteed income supplement, I am much more concerned about aboriginal Canadians who worked and, as we know, who often live on a regular basis in so-called isolated communities.

In the bill before this Parliament, will mechanisms be implemented? Can my colleague list the means that will be implemented to contact these aboriginal individuals who are entitled not only to the guaranteed income supplement that they do not receive but also to an old age pension for which they have not applied.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I too am worried about the quality of life of aboriginal Canadians. Through a true partnership with them and also because of their leadership, we will find a solution to this problem.

Furthermore, housing and income security are very important to all Canadians. We can only discuss income after having covered the cost of safe housing. I believe that this applies to aboriginal peoples and to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question concerning aboriginal people. In “Pensions In Canada: Policy Reform Because Women Matter” produced by Women Elders in Action in Vancouver in December 2004, it talks about the fact that first nations women who have lived a traditional rural life were especially vulnerable to economic hardship. The average annual income of an aboriginal woman is $13,300 compared to $19,350 for a non-aboriginal woman. As well, discrimination, childhood poverty and lower educational achievement exacerbate their already poor economic status into old age.

I know that in part this bill deals with housekeeping, but again, first nations, Métis and Inuit women are largely absent from the discussion in terms of how they would access Canada pension, old age security and any kind of livable income. I wonder if the member could speak specifically to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. One of the problems with the Canada pension plan is again the attachment to the workforce that is required and the fact that women's attachment to the workforce tends to be much shorter because of child bearing or whatever. Also, women who have stayed home to raise their children, including aboriginal women, end up having much less at the time of retirement and, as we have seen in some of the other studies, particularly if their spouse dies.

So many papers have looked at how we will ensure the income of women, whether with spouses, without spouses or whatever, and how we would go forward on this. Our responsibility to aboriginal people and aboriginal women in particular is clear. We are not there yet and it will only be in consultation with elders and aboriginal women that we will sort out a system that would work for them.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, we have many elderly women who have looked after elderly veterans for a long time and as she knows very well, many veterans' pensions, for example, are usually clawed back or deducted from other sources of income. Thus, when the veteran passes on, the spouse is only left with 50% of that reduction. That puts that individual into a big hole.

The last thing any of us in the House want to see are those caregivers, who looked after our greatest heroes, slipping into dire poverty. Could the member comment on that? What would her party recommend in order to alleviate that serious financial problem for the caregivers of our greatest heroes?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has worked a lot on these issues and I think that it is going to be hugely important as we go forward, that we get that particular problem rectified.

I cannot help but remind the new Canadian government that I believe it was the widows of veterans who were successful in their court challenge. It is for issues like this that we actually do need the court challenges program. Sometimes there are things that are just quite unfair and some of these widows are the people whose voices have not been heard.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-36.

First of all I would like to say that I am very proud to transfer the file on seniors and persons with disabilities to my new colleague from Repentigny, who I think will defend this file with as much enthusiasm, passion and determination as I did, and as all my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois who held the file before me have done.

This is a very important bill, which for us in the Bloc Québécois answers some of the requests that we have been making for many years and certain demands that we have concerning seniors, the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society.

However, I have to say that there are still some shortcomings in this bill. As in all bills that interest us, we have done our homework. We have been in touch with the various seniors’ associations, the various organizations of seniors in Quebec and even some in Canada, to check with them and their representatives whether the bill was satisfactory in their view, if it met their needs, their concerns, and whether we could go ahead and support it.

At the outset, when we had the first information session, I was very pleased to see that finally this request made for so long concerning the guaranteed income supplement had been met, that is, that the supplement should become automatic, that people should have to apply for it only once and then it should become automatic.

From the first day, I was ready to say yes, to support this bill, to fast-track it and pass it right away so that people could start receiving their income and money in time for Christmas, so that they would be pleased to see that the guaranteed income supplement had become automatic.

I reminded myself that we should never be in too much of a hurry and that we have to be very careful, even if sometimes something looks like an excellent solution overall. Indeed the automatic GIS was the good news we had been waiting for for nearly ten years.

However, other aspects of this bill, which could harm seniors and might be negative for them, told us we had to be careful before giving our assent too quickly, because we wanted at all costs to be right concerning the guaranteed income supplement.

This shows once again that when the Bloc Québécois deals with an issue that affects Quebeckers and Canadians and a segment of society that is very vulnerable and fragile, it pays attention to what it is doing and the decisions it makes. We are very careful. I think it is worth it.

We certainly support this bill in principle. It is hard to be against virtue itself. However, the hon. members will recall a few years ago my colleague Marcel Gagnon, who is no longer in the House, defending this cause with great determination and courage. He toured all of Quebec and even some parts of Canada. He defended the guaranteed income supplement and the need to find people to whom it was owed. We managed at the time to find about 40,000 of the 68,000 people there were in Quebec. We suspected that there were 68,000 people just in Quebec who were entitled to the GIS but were not getting it because they did not know it existed. We found 42,000 of them. This means that there are still 24,000, 25,000 or 26,000 who have not been found yet.

What is being done for these other people who have not been found yet for all sorts of reasons? They are people who never applied for the GIS because of a physical or mental health problem, a physical limitation, illiteracy or a linguistic barrier.

Some citizens were even deprived of considerable amounts of money and did not get the GIS even though they were entitled to it. The Department of Human Resources and Social Development apparently had difficulty contacting particularly disadvantaged clienteles such as people who have never worked outside the home, people who do not file income tax returns, natives, residents of remote communities, people with few literacy skills, people who do not read or speak either official language, people who are handicapped or ill, and finally, the homeless.

When we think of all the people involved, we have to wonder whether this bill will give use the tools we need to contact them and give them the money they are owed.

As I said earlier, we consulted various organizations and groups that work with seniors in Quebec. One of them, the Conférence des Tables régionales de concertation des aînés du Québec, took time to read the bill, study it and send us their thoughts on it.

It should be remembered that this is a rather large association that includes most Quebec seniors, since it is made up of Quebec's 17 regional round tables. As we know, Quebec is divided into 17 regions. This is the only group that covers all of the Quebec territory. It also has a key link with the Quebec seniors council and helps it fulfill its mandate by supporting its initiatives in the regions. We also know that the conference and the round tables are the primary contacts of the Quebec Minister of Family, Seniors and Status of Women. This is important. When these people talk, or when they look at a bill, we listen very carefully to what they have to say.

We can already tell the House that, for a long time now, regional tables for seniors had been asking to group together applications for old age security and guaranteed income supplement, so that a single application would be necessary for those who are entitled to both amounts. This is what Bill C-36 purports to do, and we are very pleased about that. As for the changes to the disability insurance, we think that this insurance is well adjusted to today's labour market.

There was nothing either on the fact that interests can be collected on overpayments—which is normal—but the government should also pay interest on the money that it owes to pensioners, because this is also as it should be. If one wants to get something, one should be prepared to give something. This works both ways.

Clauses 11 and 25 make it possible for a larger number of third parties to have access to personal information on the contributor. This raises privacy issues and requires the establishment of strict rules to ensure a monitoring process, so that not everyone has access to such information. It is a good thing that the requirement for spouses or common law spouses to provide information on their income or family status was abolished, when that information is already provided by the other spouse or common law spouse. This will make it simpler to file income tax returns. However, there is no indication of the Canada pension plan, the old age security benefits or the guaranteed income supplement being indexed. It is also most unfortunate that there is no retroactive measure regarding the guaranteed income supplement.

FADOQ is another seniors group in Quebec that serves hundreds of thousands of people, which is not a small gathering that can just be ignored. Hundreds of thousands of seniors belong to this group. Their concerns are the same, but we believe there may be room to make other changes to the Canada pension plan.

Among other things, they are saying that the measures proposed in Bill C-36 only concern the continued renewal of the guaranteed income supplement application and not the initial application for receiving the GIS for the first time.

The purpose of the bill is not to reduce the number of seniors who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, but to reduce the number who do not receive it. However, in Canada in 2003, despite the progress made in the past few years, 37,000 seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement still had not received it. These uncollected benefits totalled $204 million in 2003, for all of Canada—$204 million! Since the guaranteed income supplement is used as an eligibility criterion for a number of other programs, non-participants also miss out on the benefits the provinces and territories give to low-income seniors.

In Laval we have 40,000 seniors 65 and older of whom 38% are over 75. That is a significant number. In other words, many people who are over 75 are likely entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. It is not always easy to find these people since they are not used to asking for services; they are used to taking care of themselves.

Another problem is the fact that Bill C-36 says nothing about the clawback of old age security benefits imposed since 1989 on high income seniors, whereby they have to give some back. With respect to those seniors who have already reported high incomes and seen their pension clawed back after filing their income tax returns, the federal government seems to take for granted that their income level will remain unchanged, and advance pension deductions are made the following year. This means that, while these seniors do receive a monthly pension, the amount received is reduced based on the previous year. Members know that the income of seniors often varies, which makes this practice unworkable. Some seniors have told us that such a measure was likely to deprive them of a part of their income to which they are entitled.

At present, seniors who foresee significant changes in their income have to file pro forma tax returns with the Canada Revenue Agency. It might be simpler and more appropriate to have them report their income directly to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, since that is the department responsible for administering the old age security program.

Since the late 1990s, the FADOQ, Mouvement des aînés du Québec, has been calling for the OAS clawback rate to be lowered, as it reduces excessively the income of retirees who have managed to put a little money aside. The FADOQ even suggested increasing the threshold in personal income beyond which benefits may be clawed back through income tax.

In spite of all these shortcomings and oversights, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the very exciting measures contained in this bill. We will support the bill in principle, so that it can be referred to committee, where it can hopefully be amended to some extent to make it even more exciting for our seniors, who are for the most part disadvantaged people.

Given that Bill C-36 will make it easier for disadvantaged seniors to benefit from the guaranteed income 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; given that Bill C-36 enables seniors who are faced with a sudden drop in their employment or pension income during the fiscal year to apply for the guaranteed income supplement using an estimate of their employment and pension income; given that Bill C-36 explains and clarifies sections of the Old Age Security Act to correct inconsistencies; and, finally, given that Bill C-36 makes changes to the Canada Pension Plan—which does not affect Quebec and its constitutional jurisdictions—we will support this bill in principle.

However, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to broadening restrictions on new Canadian citizens who 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 following clauses pose a problem by creating different classes of Canadian citizens: 11(4), 19(3), 19(6)(d)(ii), 20 and 21(9)(c)(ii), which refer to persons in respect of whom an undertaking by a sponsor is in effect as provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These clauses exclude new Canadian citizens who are still being sponsored.

The committee and the Bloc ask that the committee amend the bill so as not to limit the rights of new citizens, as referred to here. The obligations of the sponsor, who vouches for and looks after a person who has immigrated here, generally take effect as soon as the sponsored person obtains permanent resident status. This commitment cannot be terminated, and it remains in effect when the person obtains Canadian citizenship, separates or divorces, or a moves to another province. It would remain in effect even if your financial situation were to deteriorate.

Can we allow ourselves to leave seniors destitute, simply because the person who was supposed to sponsor them has suffered a loss of income or has lost his or her job? Many textile factories are closing their doors because the government did not think to support the textile industry. Furthermore, many people will not have work in certain areas, such as at Bell Helicopter, because the government did not bother to confirm with the United States whether something could be done to ensure that people from various cultural communities could obtain the contracts offered by Bell Canada.

Many other jobs are being lost in the wood products and forestry industries. People born outside of Canada often hold these jobs. These people often act as sponsors of another individual whom they have helped come here. Unfortunately, and through no fault of their own, they can no longer properly take care of the senior whom they have taken into their home.

Will we simply leave these people in need, in difficult situations, because the person hosting them is also having difficulties? In my opinion, we must pay attention and ensure that everyone who decides to live here has a decent minimum income.

The Bloc Québécois also recommends that the committee examine the obligation to pay the full retroactivity. Last year in this Parliament, in 2005, we decided unanimously to reimburse individuals and give them full retroactivity. What has happened since then? A government, a new government, which had voted in favour of the motion of my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain, has now decided that it will not respect its commitments.

We are asking the government to pay the full retroactivity, or at least that the committee study the obligation to pay the full retroactivity and to not limit it to 11 months, as provided by law regarding the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance. This policy would allow for retroactive payment covering the full period of eligibility.

The Bloc Québécois will also ask that the Privacy Commissioner testify with regard to the broadening of the third-party group to which the contributor's personal information may be forwarded. We will also ensure that amendments to the current regulations will not restrict the scope of the guaranteed income supplement. We will continue our longstanding fight against the government to have it put in place all the elements required to ensure that seniors who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement have access to it.

With regard to interest on overpayments, we will ensure that this bill treats all taxpayers fairly. Finally, we will ensure that the time limit in which the government may reclaim overpayment of benefits is proportional to the period in which individuals may seek a--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Court Challenges Program; the hon. member for Mississauga South, China.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments because, like her, I attended the same briefing. We were both absolutely committed to achieving meaningful results for seniors. Like her, I found there were serious flaws with the bill, despite the fact that we share a commitment to make it easier for seniors to access the GIS.

I was also listening to our colleague from St. Paul's earlier. I was not here in previous parliaments, but I know that the member was and I wonder whether she could reflect on the comments of the member that she understood the studies on disability issues from the 37th Parliament. We are now in the 39th Parliament. She understood the problems with the GIS in 2001. It was her party that was in government then.

The member opposite was here at that time. I wonder if she could explain the Liberal government's complete inaction on these very serious issues that have increasingly thrown seniors in our country into poverty when there was absolutely no need to do that. The member will probably share my view that the Liberals have found religion on this issue a little late.

I am glad to see that this bill at least will get the support of most parties in the House, at least so that the GIS will be accessible for the seniors in our country who need it very much.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

It seems to me that sooner or later, all parties that have been in power in this House have found religion with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. The New Democratic Party agreed to join us in proposing full retroactivity for those eligible; the Conservative Party also agreed and voted with us; the Liberal Party voted with us. The parties all vote for what is right when it suits them. When they are in power and it no longer suits them, they forget that they voted for what is right.

I realize that there are now many members of this House who support the guaranteed income supplement. I hope that their support will not be in vain, that it will really happen this time, and that people will have access to the money they should have received a long time ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate, I understand some of the concerns that members have, but this particular bill would be so beneficial to all of our seniors. Passing this bill could solve a lot of the problems that have been created because of past mistakes.

We are debating beyond the scope of the bill. We want to get the bill through. We are not trying to do something that would be unfair to seniors on low incomes. As was said by the minister and other members, we are trying to help seniors access these support systems more easily. They are in line with what provinces are doing with retroactivity. They are consistent with federal and provincial income support programs such as the one in Alberta, the Ontario guaranteed income supplement and Quebec's family allowance.

I am not sure if this is where the debate should go. The debate should be focused on making it understood how important it is for seniors to have the bill go through as quickly as possible.

We could not consider retroactivity without having some cost analysis. I wonder whether the member in making the suggestions in all the different amendments she has made has made any cost analysis. It would close down the debate if we had to think of how much this might cost us.

I wish the member and all members would think about how important it is to get the bill through so that we can start working on other seniors issues.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the good faith of my hon. colleague from Blackstrap. I know how important the issue of seniors is to her and how familiar she is with their plight.

I understand the need for a cost analysis of our proposed amendments, but the bill first has to be brought to committee so that its substance may be discussed. Then, the issue of a cost analysis and what it might entail can be addressed.

In the past year alone, the government saved $204 million because, for many years, some seniors did not have access to the guaranteed income supplement they were entitled to. How long has the government been pocketing this kind of money, which should have been paid to those seniors who were entitled to it but never got it?

That has to be taken into account. The individuals to whom this money is owed have given their all. Several of them are war veterans. Several have had very little money on which to raise their family. Several have managed to put their children through school in spite of very serious financial difficulties. They have made it possible for us today to have a health system, an education system and all that we need to realize our potential. It would be only normal and reasonable for seniors to live out their later years in dignity, with the respect they are owed.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her remarks, which were not only very generous but also very sincere. She has just been appointed status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois. That is a great honour that our leader bestowed on her.

In her previous comment, she touched on the impact of the lack of women-specific measures, women having a longer life expectancy than men. I would like her to elaborate on that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Joliette is perfectly correct.

Unfortunately, too often when we talk about seniors, we talk about seniors in general, and very often we forget that, for the most part, seniors are women. That is because women have a much longer life expectancy than men. Yet, despite all the difficulties that women face it is hard to go into great detail on this subject.

As I stated earlier, 38% of seniors in my riding are over 75. That means that most of them have never asked for any kind of help. These people have always been self-reliant. They have always managed to get by and, unfortunately, today they find themselves in a difficult and deplorable situation. We do not have access to these people because, having never asked for help, they are not known to local health agencies and welfare groups, or to social workers. They do not know that they are entitled to help and that they have a right to GIS benefits. They are in dire straights because they are not aware of their rights. They do not know that if they had access to the guaranteed income supplement they might be able to eat better instead of spending their money on medication. They could perhaps decide to spend money on heating instead of having to wear layers of clothing because they do not have the necessary financial means to pay for housing, medication and food as well as for heating. Frequently, these people have to do without a telephone. Often they have no visitors because they have been predeceased by other family members.

Not many years ago, when someone retired at 65, it was thought he or she would be around till age 75 or 76. They had put aside enough money for 10 years or so. Today, these people are 90 or 95. What they managed to save, often with great difficulty, has vanished.

The interest rates that banks pay are not very generous. Indeed, our banks are very stingy. In fact, interest rates have been reduced to 1%, 2%, or a generous 3%. As a result, these people have neither capital nor income. They do not know whom to turn to for their basic needs. It is essential that we do our utmost for—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. Our caucus will support the bill at second reading so that it can go to committee where we can move significant amendments.

Earlier this afternoon I listened carefully to the minister's comments. Judging by the rhetoric, he would have Canadians believe that through this single piece of legislation, he has once and for all ensured that seniors no longer need to worry about their economic security in retirement. No one more than I do wishes that were true.

Seniors across our country are profoundly and legitimately worried about their retirement incomes. They are worried about the solvency of their private pensions. They fret about the adequacy of both CPP and public income supports. They are keenly aware that the rate of inflation is higher for seniors than it is for other Canadians.

What is the government's response to these very legitimate fears? It introduces a bill that is essentially just housekeeping in nature. It is administrative. It streamlines some services and application processes but it does nothing to redress the inadequate benefit levels of seniors' incomes.

Politicians on all sides of the House pay lip service to the fact that seniors built our country and that we owe it to them to ensure that they can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve, but in reality, through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, seniors are falling farther and farther behind. In my hometown of Hamilton, one-quarter of all seniors are living in poverty and senior women over the age of 75 have a poverty rate of 36%. Nationally, over one-quarter of a million seniors are living under the low income cut-off, or as we call it, living 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 just $12,400.

Living in poverty is hardly a retirement lived with dignity and respect. That is compounded by the fact that increases in the cost of living hits seniors disproportionately harder than any other segment of the population.

When Statistics Canada determines the annual cost of living upon which adjustments are based, its basket of goods includes electronics like iPods, plasma TVs and computers, all goods which are coming down in price and reducing the cost of living figures. Frankly, those are also the goods which seniors are not buying. The items seniors are spending money on are essentials like heat, hydro, food and shelter, the increasing costs of which are all outpacing their incomes. What is the government doing to address that issue? Absolutely nothing, not in this bill and not in any other piece of legislation that the Conservatives have introduced in the House to date.

In fact, I would like to remind members of the government of an issue that I raised with them in question period before the House rose in December. Statistics Canada has miscalculated the consumer price index since 2001. In response to my question, the then minister of human resources and social development acknowledged that this error meant seniors had been shortchanged for years in the increase to their CPP, OAS and GIS entitlements.

The government is continuing to make seniors pay for its mistake. Admittedly, that mistake originally happened during the Liberals' 13 years in government, but expecting the Liberals to act responsibly with taxpayers' money is, as Justice Gomery reminded us, like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

However, the Conservatives started with a blank slate and they have now tabled Bill C-36, purportedly to deal precisely with CPP, OAS and GIS. Yet nowhere in the bill nor anywhere in the minister's comments does one find any reference to righting this wrong for retirees.

I have started a national petition campaign on this issue. I would encourage the millions of Canadians who I know are watching this afternoon to go to my website, download a copy of that petition and send it back to me, or they could write to me postage free here at the House of Commons and I will personally send them a copy to circulate among their friends. Surely in what may well be an election year the government will not be able to ignore the voices of millions of Canadian voters, but judging by Bill C-36, the government will need to be pushed to do the right thing.

Last June I had the privilege of introducing on behalf of our caucus a motion in the House of Commons to create a seniors charter of rights. One of the enumerated rights in the charter is the right of all seniors to income security. To my surprise, the Conservative government supported my motion and the motion was passed by a vote of 231 to 52. However, the Conservatives have neither introduced nor supported a single legislative initiative in the seven months since the motion was passed to enact any of the rights the seniors charter guarantees.

We need the government to do more than talk the talk. It is time that it walked the walk.

To date, the Conservatives have been disinclined to help seniors living in poverty. In the last federal budget, the one and only item that came even close to addressing the income of seniors was an increase to $2,000 in the pension tax credit. Who benefits from that tax credit? Not a single senior whose only income is CPP, OAS and GIS. The tax credit only applies to private pensions. The seniors who need the money the most get no help from their government at all, not a single red cent for the neediest in our communities.

Similarly, the Conservatives increased the income tax rate in the lowest bracket from 15% to 15.5%, which means that many seniors are now getting $10 less on their monthly CPP cheques. They would have to spend $1,000 a month to recover that money from the much talked about 1% cut to the GST.

The federal government reported a surplus of $13 billion in its last federal budget and yet it did not spend a dime on alleviating poverty for seniors. I ask that I be forgiven for not doing cartwheels over the administrative tinkering that is before us in Bill C-36. it simply represents a missed opportunity.

Is there anything of value in the bill at all? Yes, there is. For example, I welcome the fact that the government will finally waive the requirement for a renewal application for the GIS and allowance benefits after an initial application has been made. That change, of course, was long overdue. What about the 130,000 seniors who are eligible for the GIS but are not receiving it? Why not just eliminate the application process altogether so that every eligible senior will be getting what is rightfully theirs?

I have proudly been working with the seniors and poverty working group in Hamilton which made it its mission last year to do the necessary outreach to ensure that seniors became aware of their public income entitlements and provided assistance to access them. It has been an absolute privilege to work with this dedicated group of community activists but it has also been an eye-opening experience to observe how community leaders who are already overworked have been forced to step up to the plate because the government has dropped the ball.

Just as seniors are not getting timely access to the GIS, so are many of them failing to apply for all of the benefits to which they are entitled under other income supports. CPP and OAS are the other two major programs that millions of aging Canadians rely on for income security in retirement. The same barriers exist for these programs as for the GIS.

One cannot simply refer seniors to a website and assume they can navigate their way through the information highway. In-depth counselling is often a prerequisite to seniors learning about all of their entitlements and ensuring that they fill out their applications properly and in a timely manner. That job used to be performed by government specialists who worked for Services Canada. These were people like Irene Smith in Hamilton who contacted me and my colleague, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, last November to inform us that she and her small cadre of colleagues were no longer permitted to give specialized attention to individuals seeking in-depth pension counselling. Instead, her job description was rewritten to make her a generalist who deals with everything from boat licences to EI. This will lead to hundreds and potentially thousands of elderly Hamiltonians being unable to access all of the financial benefits to which they are entitled in a timely fashion.

Often, restrictive clauses on retroactivity make it impossible to recover from early filing errors. These clauses too need to be changed but Bill C-36 offers absolutely no redress. Depriving seniors of what is rightfully theirs is hardly retirement lived with dignity and respect.

As we debate Bill C-36 here today, we need to ask ourselves who will ensure that current and future retirees will be made aware of their entitlements. Who will help them access what is rightfully theirs? Why is Bill C-36 silent on these crucial elements of implementation?

It is good to note that the bill would facilitate the application process for seniors who apply for income tested benefits and who have suffered a loss of income due to termination or reduction of employment or pension income by requiring that seniors report estimated pension and employment income only. However, who will be there to explain to them what that means? Who will explain to seniors when it might be advantageous for them to withdraw an OAS application where the pension has not yet been paid? I know that for some this will prove to be a positive change in the legislative framework but only if they are aware of how to access that permissive clause.

Who will explain the expanded restrictions on income tested benefits for immigrants subject to sponsorship agreements or does the minister hope that nobody will notice that part of the act?

Seniors whose sole income support is OAS and GIS are hardly in a position to hire lawyers and accountants to figure it out for them. That is why the NDP's seniors charter included the creation of a seniors advocate, someone who would be dedicated to conducting public education and awareness initiatives on the rights of seniors. Without that, a right that cannot be accessed is, frankly, no right at all. However, we can bet that the government has already put plans in place to enforce the punitive provisions of Bill C-36.

The bill strengthens the ability of the ministry to recover overpayments and interest where it has accrued, both with respect to OAS and CPP. We can bet our bottom dollar that those provisions have a staffing plan in place and yet why is there not even a mention of reimbursing pensioners with interest when an error of underpayment is made by the government? Seniors deserve better. Seniors have worked hard all their lives and have played by the rules but now that they need the system that their tax dollars helped to build, they are confronted by barriers to access.

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. It needs to live up to the commitment it made by voting for the seniors charter. It needs to ensure that seniors have timely access to all federal government services and programs. It also needs to ensure that seniors can rely on protected pensions and indexed public income supports that provide a reasonable state of economic welfare. Only then will seniors finally be able to retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleague from Hamilton for the tireless work that she has been doing on behalf of seniors, being, if I may say, a lone voice, in many cases, in the House of Commons reminding us of the need to be true and to keep faith with the seniors of our country and to represent their needs in times like this when we are debating a bill such as this.

She raised the alarming figure regarding the incidence of poverty among seniors in spite of genuine efforts in the last couple of decades to address and eradicate the embarrassingly high incidence of poverty among seniors.

There is one mitigating factor that I would raise and ask her to comment on. In the first Conservatives' budget, they did not reduce taxes for low income seniors. They actually raised taxes to low income seniors in two ways. First, the lowest tax rate went from 15% to 15.5%, a seemingly small amount but significant when one is living hand to mouth. The second thing they did was to lower the basic personal exemption for everyone by $400 a year.

If a person is collecting another pension from another source, which may have been offset by a break they gave to pensioners of $1,000, but if one's sole source of income is OAS and guaranteed income supplement and the basic personal exemption was reduced by $400, it means one is paying taxes on $400 more per year. When I work that out at 15.5% it amounts to about $62.50. That does not sound like much per year but that is $5 a month and, because it happened July 1, the Conservatives doubled it for the six months of the year, which makes it $10 a month. That is half of a week's groceries for a person living on GIS and OAS.

Would the member comment on the double whammy that actually affected seniors when the Conservatives put their hands in their pockets and raised the taxes of our lowest income Canadians?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right when he says that $10 a month extra out of the pockets of our poorest seniors is simply unaffordable.

As I said in my comments earlier, they would need to spend $1,000 to recoup that money from the 1% GST cut that was also in the budget. They do not have $1,000 a month to spend. In fact, they are in very real danger, and many of them have, of losing their homes, not because they still have mortgage payments that they are confronting but because the their basic costs, such as property taxes, heat and hydro, have risen at a rate that has simply outpaced their incomes.

We have a government that talks the talk about wanting to help seniors but in fact for the most vulnerable seniors in our country they are taking steps back every single day. What we need to do in the House, which we have called for it by putting a motion on the order paper, is to have a comprehensive review of the public income supports on which seniors rely so that they can be lifted out of poverty. Our seniors built this country and they now need this country to stand up for them and ensure they can live out their years of retirement with dignity and respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would agree that we should pass this bill through as quickly as possible so we can perhaps study some of the issues brought forward today. However, we should first move the bill forward so we can begin streamlining access to seniors benefits and making it easier for those who apply to apply only once. The new three out of the six years requirement for a disability pension will make it so much easier for everyone.

I hope the member will try to get the bill passed so we can improve things for seniors for today and for the future.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my comments this afternoon, we do support the bill in part because we owe it to seniors who so desperately need easier access to the GIS. We know that 130,000 seniors this very minute could access the GIS if the process were simpler.

However, it is a bit ironic for the member to suggest to us that she needs a commitment from me today for speedy passage when I gave a commitment to the government prior to Christmas that we would be happy to debate the bill before Christmas, before the House adjourned for a six week break. If the government had taken us up on that offer, seniors would be accessing their entitlements today instead of the member standing here encouraging me to speed up the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, seniors from coast to coast to coast and certainly in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan are very concerned about housing and health care.

I want to ask a question about women. A December 2004 report by Women Elders in Action talked about the fact that women live significantly longer, that women are the most numerous recipients of publicly funded pensions and that they are also the ones with the greatest need over an extended period of time.

This legislation does not deal with the long-standing issues around income security for women who rely, to a large extent, on OAS and CPP for their sole pension. I wonder if the member could comment on that issue.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Poverty among seniors is disproportionately large for women in our community. The reason for that is that many women were not in the workforce and therefore do not have CPP to supplement their OAS which would make them eligible for the GIS. It is one of the reasons that poverty is rampant and about one-third of seniors who are living in poverty are women.

When we look at policies such as these and legislation that we want to bring forward, we need to do a gender analysis. The reason members of the House supported my seniors charter last June was that it contained provisions to look at income security, to look at affordable housing and to put an advocate in place who could inform seniors of their rights. Those are things that would help senior women in our country tremendously. I would urge all members who voted for the motion to take their commitment seriously and to act on it. I ask them to not let their record on that one vote to be their record on senior's issues.

We need to give meaning to those rights and we need to ensure that seniors access their rights. If we do not do that then the charter will become meaningless. We need to do this together. Members have expressed their will by voting for the charter, now let us walk the walk.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton is probably aware that the NDP was horrified to learn recently that as many as 300,000 Canadians who are eligible for guaranteed income supplement were not getting it even though the government knew who they were by virtue of their tax returns.

When we finally addressed the issue, the Liberal government grudgingly agreed but only with retroactivity for 11 months. The Bloc was very concerned with this issue as well. Is there any movement within the parameters of Bill C-36 or possibility to lift that ridiculous freeze and give the money to those people who were deserving of it and eligible for it all that time for the whole period they were eligible?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there is nothing in Bill C-36 that addresses retroactivity. I have a bill on the order paper that speaks to precisely that issue.

This is one of the reasons why the bill needs to go to committee. It has all the punitive provisions whereby the government can grab overpayments. It has no problem doing that in a retroactive way. However, where seniors have been ripped off and shortchanged, there is absolutely no attempt to deal with retroactivity at all in the bill.

Again, it goes back to the same issue that I raised with respect to the mistake made in the Consumer Price Index and the impact that has had on increases in CPP, OAS and GIS. The government has admitted the mistake. It was not even its mistake. It happened under the Liberal administration, but the government admitted it happened. Again, is it willing to deal with it retroactively? Not at all. It owes seniors an explanation.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the member from Hamilton on her passionate speech and her work on behalf of seniors, along with the member for Laval who spoke, and also on her new critic post on behalf of the Status of Women.

I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-36 both as the member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale and also as the new critic for social development for the official opposition. As the critic for social development, I look forward to working on behalf of Canadians to ensure our youth, seniors and Canadian families have the tools and resources they need to succeed and to ensure they can actively contribute to their communities.

Today I will be speaking on Bill C-36, a bill that amends the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, on behalf of our caucus. However, all of us must remember and perhaps take a look at some historical facts. One of Canada's greatest achievements, and our hallmark, is its retirement income system for seniors. It is a program, as has been mentioned before, that has helped millions of seniors across Canada. I know that not only our party, the Liberal Party, but all other parties in the House have always promoted investments with and for our seniors.

Every previous Liberal government demonstrated this commitment by investing in our seniors and ensuring they would have the very best and lived their lives with dignity and respect. It was a previous Liberal government that implemented the old age security program, the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and reinstated the new horizons program. It did this to ensure seniors would live with respect and dignity.

The previous Liberal government also wanted to ensure that seniors would have a voice at the cabinet table. This is why the former Liberal government appointed a minister of state for seniors. In 2005 it also announced the creation of a seniors secretariat to ensure there would be a focal point within the federal government for collaboration to address many of the issues highlighted here in the House today.

In the 1990s the Liberal government demonstrated its commitment towards seniors and ensured long term stability in the funding for Canada pension plan and old age security. Today, the Canada pension plan fund itself stands at over $100 billion and remains safe for many generations to come.

In 2004 the Liberal government also increased the guaranteed income supplement by $2.7 billion over two years. This alone was the largest single increase that had ever been made since 1984. This increase directly benefited the many low income seniors, who we have mentioned here in the House today. It is due to the 13 years of Liberal government, its commitment and its investment in seniors that fewer Canadian seniors are now living in poverty. Public pension benefits such as the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension retirement plan, survivor and death benefits have been vital components of Canada's retirement income system.

Canada's retirement income system has successfully and dramatically reduced the rate of low income seniors. Low income among Canada's seniors who are over the age of 65 has been reduced from 11% in 1993 to 5.6% in 2004. Even though this is a lower percentage, we all realize there are still many single seniors who live in urban areas and many seniors, who are single women, who still continue to face significant challenges. Due to the fact that many seniors continue to live on fixed low income, they are likely to remain in low income for an extended period of time.

Even though the previous Liberal government increased the GIS benefits for low income seniors, it is imperative in moving forward that we, as parliamentarians in the House, continue to ensure we invest in Canada's retirement income system to ensure that the policies and programs the new government is creating will ensure that a greater number of seniors actually live their lives with dignity, with the resources and tools they need and to not live in poverty.

The Conservative government, unfortunately, cannot claim to be the defenders of a sound public pension system when the Minister of Finance has launched an attack on the vital CPP funds by linking the CPP account to the national debt.

CPP funds must be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is for future pension payments. With the economic update that was put forward in the House in the fall of 2006, the Conservative government actually set a goal to eliminate Canada's net debt by 2021. While on the surface this sounded like a great idea and a very laudable goal, the reality of it is that it is a very different picture. Canada's national debt currently stands at about $480 billion. In the past decade, again thanks to years of Liberal fiscal management, it has decreased dramatically from its record high of more than $560 billion.

The Conservatives have pledged to pay down $3 billion per year on the national debt. However, a simple calculation shows us that at this rate the national debt will be eliminated by the year 2166. However, this is where the difference between the net debt and the national debt comes in.

The national debt is the amount of money that the Government of Canada actually owes to its creditors, mostly international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is basically the equivalent of a national mortgage and the accumulation of all past deficits and surpluses. Net debt is a national debt and all the other liabilities held by government plus all of the national assets.

The single largest national asset that is held by the Canadian government is the Canada pension plan. It is currently at a value of more than $100 billion and by 2021 will reach a value in excess of $400 billion. At current trends in 2021, the nominal values of the national debt and the CPP fund will converge, essentially cancelling each other out since one is a negative and the other is a positive. This is what has allowed the Conservatives to announce their goal of elimination of the net debt by that particular year.

However, it is completely misleading and irresponsible to attach the CPP fund to the national debt. Implicitly, the government has announced that the CPP fund will be used as collateral for future borrowing when in fact we in the House all know that the CPP fund exists for one reason and one reason only, to pay future CPP benefit payments.

Net debt has been the accumulation of all assets and all liabilities. In making their pledge to eliminate the net debt, which incidentally did not contain anything new since paying down $3 billion per year on the national debt had already been booked well into the future by the previous Liberal government, the Conservatives have ignored one of the biggest liabilities that face the government, future CPP payments which continue to increase on a daily basis as our Canadian population increases and ages.

Between now and the year 2030, the population is projected to grow to 38.6 million. By 2030, the median age, which is currently at 38, is also expected to increase to 44. During this period the proportion of retirees will also increase significantly from 13% to 23% or almost nine million people. Those 80 years or older will also significantly increase from the current 3% to 6% of the general population. This group represents one of the fastest growing segments of the population.

In 2003, when we take a look at the statistics, there were 21 retirees for every 100 people of working age. By 2030, it is expected that this ratio will almost double to 41 retirees for every 100 persons of working age. These demographics and this research highlights the necessity for the government to be able to respond to the changing conditions and our aging population.

Government must be committed to poverty reduction among seniors, single women seniors and our aboriginal seniors. Government must ensure that all seniors can maintain their standard of living in retirement. Public policy must be able to respond to the financial future pressure on the public pension system so that all seniors from all walks of life, not just high income seniors, are guaranteed a decent quality of life in their latter years.

Less than 50% of seniors benefit from a private pension plan. Women are far more likely to depend on the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement as important sources for their income. Both of these programs together account for 32% of women's income versus a men's income.

Despite the improvements the bill is going to make to ensure some efficiency, the government's policies have not helped Canada's seniors since the Conservatives have been in power. We need only look at the issue of income trusts. On October 31, 2006, the Conservative government broke its promise to Canadian seniors and actually started to tax income trusts, another promise broken by the Conservatives.

Many Canadians throughout the country had invested their money based on this promise. I know that many of my own constituents, many seniors in my own constituency of Brampton—Springdale, had invested their hard-earned life savings in income trusts. Many of them depended on and took the Conservatives at their word. On the day the decision to tax income trusts was announced, many constituents and many seniors across Canada lost their hard-earned savings. They were wiped out in a matter of moments.

It was ironic that when the Prime Minister appointed Senator LeBreton Secretary of State for Seniors, she herself could not see the devastating impact that the decision on income trusts actually had on seniors and stated, “I have not seen any evidence that people have individually lost large sums of money”. This was absolutely no consolation to the thousands of seniors who lost their hard-earned savings.

This is also the same government that less than a year ago proposed to the provinces to put all future federal surpluses into the CPP account. This was widely shot down by many of the premiers, who did not want or were wary of any type of political interference in the fund, because they also believe that the CPP fund should be kept at arm's length from government and managed by the CPP Investment Board.

We must ensure that the principles behind the CPP account cannot be compromised. I know that many of my hon. colleagues in the House have spoken about increasing efficiency, about ensuring that the most vulnerable seniors who need access to the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, actually have the opportunity to get access, but I think we must also ensure, moving forward, that we provide access to the many thousands of seniors across Canada for whom English or French is perhaps not their first language. We must be able to reach out to the cultural communities to ensure that they also have the opportunity to learn of the benefits and the resources available to them.

Even though we will be supporting Bill C-36 today, I think it is imperative that we all work collectively in the House of Commons, as I believe ensuring the respect and dignity of our seniors is really a non-partisan issue. Many of the members of the House have put forward great initiatives, policies and program ideas. I hope that we all work together to ensure that our seniors have the very best.

Seniors must not live in poverty any more. There must not be low income seniors. We must provide policies, programs and resources to ensure that they actually live outside of poverty and have the very best, that they live in an environment of dignity and respect.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that the plight of women pensioners living in poverty was exacerbated terribly when the former President of the Treasury Board used the entire surplus of the public service pension plan to pay down the debt and to give tax breaks to wealthier Canadians in the year 2000.

My colleague was not here then, but we remember it very well. Statistically, most of the public service pensioners are women and their average income is $9,000 per year, but when the Liberals froze the wages of public servants for seven years straight, the actuarial impact was to create a $30 billion surplus in the plan. Rather than saying that they would improve the plight of these people making $9,000 a year, largely women, and distribute it among the beneficiaries, they said, “Hey, we found $30 billion. Let us use it to give $100 billion worth of tax breaks to our wealthy friends and corporations”.

Would the hon. member agree with me that this mindset dramatically affected in a negative way the standard of living of some of Canada's poorest Canadians, the women who were in fact pensioners from Canada's public service, many of whom are in Ottawa, many of whom are living in my riding, and many of whom, I am sure, live in her own riding?

If I could just add to and qualify this, at the same time, Bell Canada had a pension plan surplus. Bell decided that it would take one-third for the company, have one-third for future use and give one-third to the beneficiaries of the plan. In fact, one-third was a credit, I suppose, a contribution holiday. Would the hon. member not agree that this would have been the humane and decent thing to do for the pensioners with the $30 billion surplus instead of the government taking it all and not one penny going to the beneficiaries of the plan?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that I was not here during that particular time, but I can say that when the Liberal government was in power it did invest in seniors. It had a commitment to seniors. I know that many reforms took place in the late 1990s to ensure that there would be security and stability for the Canada pension plan. Over $28.5 billion was invested in the old age supplement. There were also the guaranteed income supplement benefits in budget 2005. Numbers of initiatives for seniors were announced. There was a commitment of over $2 billion a year in direct tax credits such as the age credit and the pension income credit.

I know that under the Liberal tenure there was a variety of investments. Commitments were made on behalf of seniors. I know that many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party want to ensure that we have seniors who do not live in poverty. Seniors should not live on low incomes. We tried to ensure that there were resources and tools available to them at that particular time. I would hope that in moving forward the Conservatives would also start supporting that investment and that commitment to our seniors.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to state my sincere congratulations to the member on her new position as critic and also congratulate her for her fine speech, made with passion in this House. Of course, all of us are concerned about this issue, and it is a very important one for which I think we will probably find support in the House among members of all parties.

Sometimes we have to remind members of the House and the public that the Liberal Party is the party of old age pensions and the party of old age security. I recall vividly having a discussion with my friends on this very issue about seven or eight years ago. Many people, and certainly people of my generation, have felt that there probably will not be a pension when people of my generation retire. I think that probably if we had listened to the NDP's recommendations we would not have a pension plan now nor would we for future generations.

We Liberals in fact brought about great stability. The member for LaSalle—Émard, when he was Minister of Finance, brought incredible stability to the pension plan and today we can say that it will be there for the next 75 years and hopefully for many more years to come.

We have to keep straightening out the record because my hon. colleague from the NDP, when he asked his question, certainly was forgetting the fact that the system was practically bankrupt and that my generation would not have been able to benefit from the plan we have today. There was an incredible amount of work done, and there were some sacrifices, yes, but we brought stability to it and in fact the plan that we have today is guaranteed. That guarantee would not have been there. This is something the NDP member somehow always forgets to mention when he states his facts.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for actually reminding others in the House of the Liberals' commitment to our seniors and also to the Canada pension plan in ensuring its stability for the long term. As he mentioned, the member for LaSalle—Émard, at that time the prime minister, ensured stability for at least 75 years. We hope it lasts for years to come.

If I may, I will continue with our achievements, our commitment and the investments made by the previous Liberal government. In the economic update of 2005, the basic personal amount was increased by $500. This helped tens of thousands of seniors living on low incomes go from below the poverty line to lower income levels.

We can also take a look at the other achievements. There were tax reductions for individuals and adjustments to our tax system that also benefited thousands of seniors. There was the launch of the new horizons program for seniors, which allowed funding for community projects in order to reach out to vulnerable seniors.

We hope the Conservatives are going to continue some of these great programs and initiatives.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I could take just one more moment of time, I would like my colleague to explain to me by what convoluted pretzel logic the Liberals thought they were protecting the privacy of low income seniors in not giving them their guaranteed income supplement. How did they rationalize that?

My question finds its origins in the fact that the government knew there were 300,000 seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement--it knew this by their tax returns--but who had never applied. The onus to apply was on them. When we complained to the government, it said it could not just tell them that they were eligible as it would violate their privacy to use their tax returns for any reason other than taxes.

Now, did it rationalize that kind of pretzel logic in that it was doing people a favour by not giving them the income supplement to which they were entitled, especially when we consider that they are the lowest income people in the country? People do not even qualify for a guaranteed income supplement until there are earnings of $12,000 a year, and up to, I believe, $22,000 total, or in that range.

I am not satisfied with the answers I have received so far regarding the guaranteed income supplement and what the thought process of the Liberals would be in denying worthy and deserving seniors the income supplement they are entitled to and then only going retroactive for 11 months even when they are guilted into it.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must remind the member that in 2004 it was the Liberal government that made one of the largest single increases to the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors, to the tune of $2.7 billion. For many seniors across the country, that resulted in an additional almost $36 per month for a single senior and $58 a month for couples. For seniors who are living in poverty, that is a substantial amount of money. This $2.7 billion investment was made because of our commitment to seniors and to ensuring that they would have the very best.

We have all agreed in this House today that we must reach out to those seniors who do not have the information or the resources that allow them to realize that they can actually apply for the GIS. I would think that it is the responsibility of all parliamentarians in this House to reach out to those seniors, to reach out to those constituents, to ensure that we educate them, and to ensure that if they are entitled to GIS they will be able to apply for the program.

I must say that during the previous Liberal government there was a great partnership between Human Resources and Social Development Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which allowed provincial organizations and many other grassroots volunteers to reach out to seniors and educate them about the GIS.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the proceedings. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the report?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham mentioned over and over, and it needs to be repeated, about the security of today's Canada pension plan, and it took Liberals to look after the mess that was left after many years of neglect by the Conservative government.

I think he mentioned something like quite a number of years in the future that we have protection and security. My question is going to be about confidence. We all know how hard it is to keep and maintain confidence in the ridings. We face that every day.

We have heard the current comments of the so-called new Conservative government and what it will do. We have looked at some of the issues which it is going to deal with such as the Canada pension fund and whether it will use it to balance the books.

Who is he hearing that the people have more confidence in when he travels in his riding? Do they have confidence in the Liberals, the ones who looked after the mess left by the Conservatives, or do they have confidence in the Conservatives to mess it up again? I wonder what he hears from his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question begs a very biased answer, but I am not going to engage in that. It has been said quite clearly that it was in the nineties, after the Conservative government, when the Canada pension plan program was secured for the next 75 years.

In terms of attaching the Canada pension plan fund to the national debt, I have studied many ledgers. I have looked at many balance sheets. This is a new improved, I guess, Conservative plan that not too many accountants or financial planners would have any familiarity with it. When we look at our Canada pension plan fund and add it into the mix of the national debt, it creates such a big mess that is unbelievable. It is very unfair for Canadians to look at the national debt, the way that it is stated by the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

Before I get into some specifics around Bill C-36, much has been talked about in terms of the Canada pension plan and how its investment in the stock market has been such a good thing. Yet when members raise issues around health care, how do they address the fact that the Canada pension plan has money invested in tobacco companies? We know there are links between various kinds of cancers and the impact they have on our health care system. On one hand, we are putting money into CPP. On the other hand, we are paying it in health care costs. One would wonder about the wisdom of that kind of situation.

With regard to Bill C-36, the New Democratic Party will support having this bill go to second reading, but we have some concerns about the things that were omitted from the legislation. We hear a lot from seniors in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. My riding happens to be a destination of choice for people to retire. Although rising numbers of seniors are moving to the riding, we also have rising housing costs, reduced access to rental accommodation, increased concerns about health care in terms of access, long wait lists and lack of access to things like resident home support and to long term care beds.

Many issues are facing seniors. We also hear from them about things like transportation, for example, and that is certainly an environmental issue. It is also very much an issue for seniors. They want the ability to maintain their independence, yet in many of our communities there is lack of access to adequate public transportation, which really limits their ability to maintain that independence.

We also have heard from seniors about livability and affordability in their communities, and that leads me directly to income.

I see that my time is up for the day.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt, but the honourable member for Nanaimo—Cowichan will have eight minutes left in her allotted time.

The House resumed from January 29 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan had the floor and there are eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks. I call, therefore, upon the hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned yesterday I said that New Democrats would support Bill C-36 going to committee but that we strongly felt that a number of issues in the bill needed to be addressed.

Many seniors in my riding are facing dire circumstances and, in terms of livability and affordability, this would have been an opportunity to look at some other measures within the bill. It was a chance to actually fix some of the problems that are occurring with CPP and OAS.

I also want to talk about housing. I have heard some heartbreaking stories from seniors in Lake Cowichan in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan who have told me that when it comes time for a couple to go into assisted living or long term care the couple is often separated. One member of the couple needs to move to Duncan where the person can get the care that he or she needs. We now have a senior travelling from Lake Cowichan to Duncan on a daily basis to look after his or her loved one. That is just one of the many issues facing our seniors and we need to look at where we are investing our energy.

A group of women in British Columbia called Women Elders in Action, WE*ACT, has put together a very good document about pensions in Canada, “Policy Reform Because Women Matter”. One of the things it talks about is that a quarter of a million seniors are living under the low income cut-off. Many may ask what low income cut-off means.

The low income cut-off is the most consistently used measure of poverty in Canada. Several years ago Statistics Canada found that average Canadian families were spending about 50% of their total income on food, shelter and clothing. It arbitrarily estimated that families spending 70% or more of their income, 20 percentage points more than the average on the basic necessities, would be in dire circumstances.

Let us think about the fact that 70% of our income would go to what most of us would consider the basic necessities. We have a significant number of women in Canada who are living under the low income cut-off. In Canada I would suggest that it is probably something that most of us would find unacceptable.

Canadian men and women work hard all their lives and when they reach the age of 60 or 65 they fully expect to retire with some dignity and to have access to a pension that ensures their quality of life, which means that they do not have to struggle to have their basic needs met, like food, security and shelter.

According to WE*ACT, from 1990 to 2000 about 65% of people receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement were women compared to 35% of men who tend to rely more heavily on occupational pension plans and RRSPs for income.

I need to re-emphasize that figure of 65%. We have a significant number of women in this country who, once they reach the age of 65, are living in desperate poverty. Many of these women have spent much of their working life in low wage jobs or in non-standard employment which is a lovely word to describe the fact that women are often in part time, seasonal or contract employment. This means that they have never had the opportunity to contribute to a private pension plan and therefore are totally reliant on Canada pension, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. As well, many of these women have had employment gaps and do not have the full years of entitlement.

Some drop-out provisions have been made but many of these women have also been looking after aging parents or have had the primary responsibility for child-rearing. The fact that they have been in non-standard employment, low wage employment or part time employment significantly affects the quality of their retirement years. In addition, women traditionally outlive their spouses so they often end up single and relying again on substantially reduced pension plans.

Why would this matter? I acknowledge the fact that many men who retire are also poor but a substantial amount of research talks about where women go so does the rest of the community. In the WE*ACT report, according to Esping-Andersen there is a strong case for a woman-friendly social contract because improving the welfare of women means improving the collective welfare of our society.

With this opportunity to look at CPP and OAS, it would seem critical that we actually look at the people who are living in these dire circumstances in our society.

This report from 2004 made about 23 recommendations and a number of these recommendations were never acted upon. The report included a recommendation for reforming the public pension system to ensure people had adequate living conditions. Some of the recommendations talked about private occupational pensions, some taxation considerations and the need for indexing, and then some overall recommendations around policy changes to support these other changes.

A number of things are really important, and I will not read the full details, but they talk about providing education on all aspects of pensions that is accessible and understandable to women of all ages. They talk about providing problem solving counsellors for people who have questions or concerns and a 1-800 number that is easily accessible and, I might add, staffed because we know Canadians are struggling to access the 1-800 numbers provided by the government services. People often have lengthy delays in accessing information. They also talk about providing seniors with a list of government programs for which they might qualify upon making application to receive the pension and ensuring they are informed of all future changes to pension policy in Canada, including analysis of the differential impact on men and women.

We also need to look at affordable child care, adequately paid maternity leave, parental leave and so on, but we also need to look at pay equity so that by the time women reach the age of receiving CPP and old age security they have been in jobs that recognize the value of women's work. It would be timely to revisit the important pay equity report that came out a couple of years ago but which has never been implemented.

Although New Democrats will be supporting this going to committee, we see that there needs to be some substantial changes to this legislation to ensure that fairness and affordability are there for all Canadians when they retire.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. It gives me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the many seniors in Victoria whom I met last December and this January. I met seniors who advocate on behalf of other seniors, like those in the Greater Victoria Seniors organization or the seniors at the James Bay New Horizons Society. These seniors are worried about their pensions and their ability to cope with inflation.

Seniors make up 18% of greater Victoria's population. There are approximately 55,500 seniors and of that number approximately 5,600, largely women, are living in poverty. It is disgraceful that our seniors in Canada and in Victoria have to live month to month. That should not happen in Canada.

This bill is largely a housekeeping bill to modernize the administration of benefits, with several clauses on interest amounts owing to Her Majesty. It is a lost opportunity to make substantive changes in the lives of seniors. It was an excellent opportunity to fix some of the problems facing seniors. I would like to speak to a few of the issues that were raised with me.

Speaking about the bill's provisions on the interest on amounts owing to Her Majesty, there is nothing in this bill about the interest on amounts owing to pensioners from miscalculations on old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and CPP between July 2001 and March 2006, when it was fixed, as my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, pointed out to the minister. For that, it seems, we are going to have to wait and to continue to badger the Conservative government to get action for redress.

There are over four million seniors who rely on OAS, GIS and CPP for their incomes. While past changes and some increases in payments have helped alleviate some of the most dire poverty faced by many Canadian seniors, there are still too many falling between the cracks of our support systems in Canada. In fact, 165,000 seniors have no income other than OAS and GIS benefits.

I also want to raise the issue of the income disparity between men and women that my colleague has just referred to. The income disparity throughout their lifetimes is of course reflected in women's retirement income. Women's lesser wages and varying degrees of participation in the labour market affect their contributions and thus payments from CPP.

As an example, I would like to stress that data demonstrating gender differences in coverage show that the average monthly retirement pension paid to pensioners aged 65 to 69 was $533 for men and only $299 for women in that year. Nothing in this bill addresses this issue. There have been many reports providing some solutions to this problem, as has been pointed out by many speakers before me.

There is nothing in this bill, either, to address the under-subscription of OAS and GIS. It is necessary, still, to apply for these benefits. Many seniors who are either not able to apply or not well enough informed lose this important source of income. This is not insignificant. The sums in question are considerable. The 50,000 seniors who were eligible for OAS but did not apply in 2004, for example, sustained a total income loss of $250 million per year. It is often women who fail to apply for these benefits.

Last year, Parliament adopted the seniors charter. If we want to do more than pay lip service to the rights enshrined in the seniors charter, we must begin to explore all possible means of creating better income security and well-being for those who have worked hard all their lives.

Recognizing some of the problems faced by seniors in B.C. and their inability to advocate on their own behalf, 15 seniors' organizations formed the Seniors' Advocacy Steering Committee in British Columbia. Echoing the seniors charter, they passed a motion asking for the establishment of a seniors' advocacy group. We ask the Conservative government to support the motion and to begin by creating a seniors advocate, as already approved by Parliament. This simply complies with the will of Parliament.

There is a demonstrated need for public education and awareness initiatives on the rights of seniors, as we have already pointed out. There is a need for an ombudsman for seniors with respect to all government services and programs.

We know, for example, that there is a need to better coordinate provincial and federal programs. I would like to give a specific example from Victoria. Some of my constituents report that they are regularly advised by the provincial government to apply for federal CPP disability instead of the provincial disability program. However, people on CPP disability have been refused access to at least two programs that are available to those on provincial disability, for example, the homeowner grant that helps to pay a portion of property taxes and the monthly bus program.

This illustrates that an ombudsman or a seniors advocate could help to bridge those gaps. Seniors should not be denied these services just because they are on federal or provincial disability. It is cases like these, as I have said, that demonstrate the need for a seniors advocate.

We must put words to action. We recognize older Canadians as creative, active and valued members of society. We know what contributions they make in each of our communities to social cohesion, family support, mentorship and community volunteering. We have enshrined the right to income security for every senior living in Canada. I believe that it is time to pass to action through amendments at the committee level. I hope the committee will review some of the problems that have been raised, take them seriously and review, for example, the existing process for receipt of income support.

It is also time to act on a national home care program. I know from speaking to some seniors in my community that they want to live as independently as possible for as long as possible. The absence or the cost of home care, which is prohibitive for many people, force them into higher cost facilities or into hospital.

It is time for the government not just to pass simple administrative housekeeping bills, but to really give follow-up with serious action and to redress and correct the reality that many seniors in Canada are living in poverty and isolation. That should not happen. Their contribution calls for more fairness for all.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks on this important issue. I was lucky enough to attend a meeting the other day with seniors who were talking about health care and pensions. Some of the things they told me about their personal experiences and others that they represented included how seniors, women seniors primarily, were living in poverty, were having a hard time paying for their medications and were looking for affordable situations in which to live.

One of the things they talked about was home care, which is so desperately needed in my riding and in this country, as we have heard from other speakers, so I would like to thank the member for mentioning home care and how it relates to assisting seniors and some of the costs that seniors have to face.

Women especially are traditionally lower paid. We know that women still earn 73¢ for every dollar that men earn. With regard to improvements to our pension system and opportunities to access it in a more timely fashion with respect to the GIS, could the member elaborate on some of those things that would go a long way to assisting seniors and also would help them to live a dignified life in their old age?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, economic vulnerability is not just about insufficiency of income, but also about loss of dignity, isolation, and social inclusion. I remember very vividly an older man whom I met in January. I stopped by his house and felt bad because he had such difficulty coming to the door, but he said that he wanted to speak to me. It seems that he was struggling on a very limited pension to remain independently in his home while suffering from very serious arthritis and having difficulty moving.

That is an example of where a national home care program could allow seniors to live out their days in their homes with support. It would also act in a preventive way. Someone going into a home from time to time could prevent more serious problems from occurring, problems that are far more costly to the system, and it would allow seniors to remain in good health for much longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if she realizes that we are talking about trying to get a bill that will make it easier in the future for seniors to access benefits. We seem to be getting carried away by the situations that some seniors are in.

The situations she is talking about and bringing up in regard to this bill are situations that I hear a lot about in Blackstrap. A lot of seniors indeed do not have good access to health care. There are stories of seniors who lived in a community for years and could not be put into an old folks home there because of the amalgamations of the health districts; they were swept away into a community that is over 100 miles away from their families. And because of Saskatchewan's NDP government, the roads are not very good, so people cannot even visit their relatives. I am talking about the member's counterparts in that province.

As for the health care she is describing, that is true. It is there. The seniors are indeed having some day to day struggles, but in our province our provincial government is responsible for that, and many of the seniors are very upset because of some of the conditions they are living under and some of the communities they have--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

We have run out of time, but I will allow the member for Victoria a brief response.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member raise some of these issues. While reading the bill this week, I was worried that the Conservatives were living in a parallel reality. I am glad they are hearing some of the same concerns.

There is a lot in this bill about interest on amounts owing to the Crown, but very little on amounts owing to pensioners. We know that due to miscalculations pensioners in Canada are owed a very large amount, yet the Conservative government refuses to address that issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny for his maiden speech in the House.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to join those of my colleagues who, since yesterday, have been speaking on Bill C-36.

I extend special thanks to the hon. member for Laval, who spoke yesterday. I listened carefully to her speech. Until just recently, she was the critic on this issue, which I have now taken over. I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-36.

First, I will take a moment to thank the people in my riding of Repentigny, which I represent here in the House of Commons. I wish them a happy new year. The time is still right in January to extend our wishes.

I also beg the members' indulgence for my raspy voice. I have caught a bad cold, a man's cold that is apparently difficult to get rid of.

I pledge to my constituents of Repentigny that I will spare no time or effort in representing them well in this House and vehemently defending their rights. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and myself will continue to doggedly defend the interests of all Quebeckers.

It is my pleasure to stand in this House today to speak on an issue as important as seniors. Before getting into politics and joining the Bloc Québécois, in my former life, I had daily contact with people of all ages, and seniors in particular facing poverty.

Humbly and with the means available to me, I tried to help them. I started by listening to them. I comforted them, I am convinced of that. And I got a better feel for what kind of hardship they were experiencing.

I recall that a month before I went into politics, a woman came to see me in the parish where I was working as a priest. She was in tears. She wanted to move out of her niece's home, because her niece was mistreating her, but she could not afford to live anywhere else. She was on a waiting list for a home of her own. Obviously, I could not solve her problem, but I was able to help her just by listening. I tried to give words of comfort to people suffering from poverty, because the poor really do suffer. I wondered why there was so much poverty among the elderly and why governments had never recognized what a scourge poverty is and tried to eradicate it. The elderly built Quebec and Canada, and I wondered why we did not help them more.

I would like to quote part of a column Pierre Foglia wrote last week in La Presse about the death of Abbé Pierre:

Abbé Pierre was the last in a long line of good people who indignantly refused to accept poverty. ... Now that Abbé Pierre is gone, all we have left are good people.

I wondered why Foglia said that. I know that Foglia felt and still feels today that there are many good people in our society who are doing something about the growing inequalities. But Abbé Pierre was special: he responded with indignation. Foglia also wrote:

Without a sense of indignation, we become accustomed to doing good works instead of working for social justice.

It is not enough to do good works; we also need to have a sense of indignation about the bad things done in our society. I do not claim to be another Abbé Pierre, nor do I claim to be of the same calibre, but I think that that is more or less the main reason I got into politics. Poverty makes me as angry as it made him, especially when it affects the elderly. And if, together, we can improve the lot of our fellow citizens, then I will not have entered politics in vain.

During my recent election campaign, I had the opportunity to tour my riding for the first time. I visited various community organizations as well as seniors' residences. I had the privilege to sit down to dinner with seniors a number of times. And like any good candidate, I went door to door. I saw that many elderly people do not live in any kind of luxury.

I was shocked and even appalled to see such deserving people living on so little, knowing that the government was hiding the extra income to which they had every right. At that moment, I became convinced—and I remain convinced to this day—that my decision to enter politics was the right one and that we, my colleagues in this House and I, could find a way to help vulnerable seniors.

I took the time to talk to these people. I did my very best to inform them of the current and former governments' conscious omission and to tell them that they are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. I promised to do everything in my power, with the support of my Bloc Québécois colleagues who have been fighting to defend and improve Quebec's rights for so long, to spur the government to action on this issue and ensure that every senior is informed and, above all, receives the guaranteed income supplement and any other income they are entitled to. This has become a personal commitment for me.

Let us not forget that for many years now, the Bloc Québécois has been devoting a lot of energy in this House to reminding the government of its responsibilities and duties toward our seniors, who are often the most vulnerable members of our society, the people who built the country we live in, the people whose quality of life often depends on the level of care they receive. That quality of life is often dictated by their income.

In 2001, the Bloc Québécois criticized the Liberal government's mismanagement of the guaranteed income supplement program. We implemented a major initiative that has enabled us to find 42,000 of these people so far. Often, these people were society's neediest and many of them were deprived of the money they should have been collecting for years through the federal guaranteed income supplement. Thanks to our efforts, about $190 million has been redistributed to some of the poorest seniors in our society. The Bloc Québécois is also asking the government to acknowledge its mistake and give full, not partial retroactive reimbursement to all of the seniors it swindled.

I would remind the House that in December 2001, under the Liberal government, the House adopted the report on the guaranteed income supplement by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities. In its report, the committee painted an interesting picture of the situation and made a number of recommendations. I do not intend to repeat the committee's recommendations, but the fact remains that, although Human Resources Development Canada has been aware of the under-subscription of GIS since at least 1993, the problem persists today. I would remind the House that we are now in 2007. It is very sad to think that, for the past 14 years, Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, could have and should have been helping tens of thousands of people among the least well-off in our society. Instead, it chose to turn a blind eye and deliberately ignore these people, who are so desperately in need. It deliberately chose to take no action.

Let us first take a closer look at the problem surrounding the guaranteed income supplement. The raison d'être of such a program was, first and foremost, to give low-income retirees an additional benefit on top of their old age security. In order to receive it, eligible individuals must apply for it every year when they are filing their income tax return. This is what constitutes the greatest injustice, because many seniors are unable to fill out the forms or even understand their contents.

This bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act finally corrects the irregularities that our seniors have been facing for more than 14 years. However, it still raises a number of issues that remain vague, even though we, the Bloc Québécois, continue to tackle them with vigilance. I have the opportunity to rise and speak here today, and I am privileged, along with my colleagues in this House, to analyze Bill C-36, introduced by the government, which, overall, leads us to believe that this government knows that our seniors have been cheated for far too long.

We understand that the primary objectives of Bill C-36 as a whole are to ensure the availability, accessibility and obtainability of the amounts owing to all potential beneficiaries. We are, however, bitterly disappointed to note that the Conservative government is not undertaking to give beneficiaries the full retroactive amount.

If a Canadian citizen owes money to the government, though, for whatever reason or to whatever department, we all know just how far the government will go to recover the amounts in question. Why should there not be the same commitment to these seniors who have been cheated for so long?

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that a responsible government would refund the total amounts that its predecessor or it itself had voluntarily or involuntarily failed to pay for so long. A responsible government, by means of this quite legitimate gesture, would acknowledge a problematic situation that it had created itself, and also thus acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by those very individuals, our seniors, through their hard work and dedication, to the development of Quebec and Canada.

Furthermore, this Conservative government, with this bill, wishes to create different classes of Canadian citizens. I will come back to this point later.

The government offers all Canadians—except in Quebec where we have our own plan, the Quebec Pension Plan—a federal-provincial pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan. In addition, the first pillar of Canada’s retirement income system is the old age security program and more specifically, the benefits based on income, that is, the guaranteed income supplement and allowance, which are generally paid to seniors aged 65 or more.

The guaranteed income supplement is a non-taxable monthly benefit, which is paid to low-income beneficiaries of the old age security pension. The benefits gradually decrease until they reach zero as the beneficiary’s net income reaches a certain level. Since this supplement is in addition to the old age security pension, we may ask: who is entitled to it? First, people must be 65 years of age or older and, second, must be Canadian citizens or legal residents of Canada at the time the pension is approved. Third, they must have resided in Canada for at least 10 years after the age of 18.

This bill will make it easier for the most disadvantaged seniors to receive the guaranteed income supplement by no longer requiring them to reapply annually. The application will be renewed automatically and the guaranteed income supplement for couples will be based on one and the same return.

This bill will allow seniors who suffer a sudden reduction in employment or pension income during a fiscal year to submit an application for an income supplement based on an estimate of their employment and pension income.

Yes, this bill will amend and fine-tune certain sections of the Old Age Security Act in order to deal with inconsistencies. Yes, it will introduce some measures amending the Canada Pension Plan, which does not at all affect Quebec and its constitutional areas of jurisdiction.

However, how can we, the Bloc Québécois, support expanding restrictions on new citizens who have immigrated to Canada? As I was saying before, for the Bloc Québécois, there cannot be different classes of Canadian citizens, no matter what their background.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, why would the government only pay retroactivity limited to 11 months, as provided in the act governing the guaranteed income supplement and the allowance?

We are asking the committee to examine the obligation to pay the full retroactivity. This policy would allow for the entire eligibility period to be covered in full.

The Bloc Québécois will ask the Privacy Commissioner to testify with regard to the broadening of the third-party group to which the contributor's personal information may be forwarded. The Bloc Québécois will ensure that amendments to current regulations will not restrict access to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc Québécois is also committed to continuing its longstanding fight with the federal government to have it put in place all the elements required to ensure that seniors who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement are able to receive it.

With regard to interest charged on overpayments, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the bill is fair for all contributors. Finally, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the statute of limitations in the case of recovery of overpayments by the government is proportional to the period for which individuals can make a claim for an amount due to them. While the government does not propose to offer full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement, it appears to abolish any time limit when it comes to the money that is owed to the government.

We should not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that there is poverty in our midst. Let us also recognize that poverty is a part of the daily life of a great many people, as much in Quebec as in the rest of Canada. I personally rubbed shoulders with poverty not long ago while working as a priest. I was outraged and I am still outraged to see this scourge continuing to affect the lives of so many people, especially the most vulnerable people, those who are older.

If my colleagues have not seen this scourge, they have only to go out into the streets. They will see that there really are such people. They need only walk about their ridings; and if they are nervous about doing that, let them come to my riding. I will be happy to show them.

In closing, let us take some time to reflect and to think of our own parents, who worked all their lives; who raised families, sometimes large families. It is in large part because of them that our life today is what it is. Let us think of these seniors who did so much for us and for our country. Let us ask ourselves whether they do not deserve more respect from their government, whether they are not entitled to receive this minimum that the government wants to give back to them. Let us understand that we are not talking here of people who are well off, to whom we are offering a little extra. No, we are talking about people who struggled all their lives; who worked hard all their lives and who have had trouble making ends meet. Often, these people deprived themselves for the good of their family, for the good of their children. They deserve a minimum of respect from the government.

For the sake of dignity, out of respect, and in recognition of our senior citizens, I call on the government to carefully consider the recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois. These recommendations are no more than the justice and fairness to which our older citizens are entitled. We must never forget that justice is the first of all values; it comes before even love. We can not love someone if we do not treat him or her with justice. Thank you for having listened attentively.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Repentigny. He gave us his appreciation and analysis of the situation, and I want to stress the quality that he displayed in telling us about his experience and in sharing with us his rather exceptional course.

My colleague described the plight of those seniors who are affected by this injustice on the part of the Canadian government, an injustice that has prevented them from having access to the guaranteed income supplement. He showed very clearly how the government acted, so that these people would become ineligible for these benefits through their own actions.

Without getting into the sordid aspects of life, I wonder if my colleague could tell the House about the impact of such a measure on the most vulnerable seniors in our society. Indeed, the first criterion to qualify for this supplement is that the person must have a low income. In other words, we are targeting the most needy. With Bill C-36, an effort is being made to allow these people to now have access to this guaranteed income supplement. However, they were robbed of $3 billion, and I am not using excessive language here.

I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on this point and remind us of the impact that these measures have had on the elderly.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to respond to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

As a parish priest I would often visit homes where seniors lived in the basement in abject poverty. These people experienced a great deal of insecurity. They were unable to pay for electricity or cover daily expenses. They lived in extreme poverty at a nephew's home or even with strangers. Often I had the sense that they were being abused. Some people would take away what little benefits these seniors received and save money at their expense.

Seniors would confide in me. It pained me to see their situation and I am certain that some seniors even passed away in these conditions. I often conducted funerals for very poor people and I think that for a 75- or 80-year-old widow or widower—especially widows, since there are more women than men in this situation—it is not healthy to live in insecurity, or to live in a basement 24 hours a day.

I have met a number of people like that. Often they would just cry. They are people who do not want to bother anyone. They would ask me not to talk about it with the person who took them in because they would be mistreated even more. I encountered this often. It always brought to mind what Lacordaire said in a famous statement he used. He said that when people leave us we must remember them. There are two ways of remembering. We can remember in our mind by recalling past events. However, Lacordaire said we might forget some. But, if we remember with our hearts then we cannot forget because the heart is the organ of love and this allows us to bring people back to life and make them immortal.

For everyone who died in distress and in poverty, I often quoted Lacordaire to say that we must not forget them. We must remember with our hearts to keep them with us and to immortalize them. I think this can have an impact on society as a whole.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I too wish to congratulate our new colleague from Repentigny, Mr. Speaker. I think that we all stand to benefit from his life experience and his empathy for people across Quebec, and Canada as well I hope.

I wanted to tell him that what struck me most in this bill was the exception concerning new immigrants, these new Canadian citizens who, while having been recognized by our government remain excluded from the guaranteed income supplement. I think that is a great injustice. My riding regularly welcomes new Canadian citizens. The same must be true in the ridings of many of my colleagues. I know how hard these people strive over the course of many years, landing in a country where they have to be sponsored, to ensure that they have sufficient income.

Are we intent on penalizing them for the longest time possible, especially once they have been recognized as Canadian citizens? I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of this exception concerning our new Canadian citizens who have been officially recognized as such.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, referring this bill to committee will allow us to review all these types of exception, be it people coming to Canada from abroad or seniors, whether Canadian-born or immigrant. I think that there is a degree of fairness, a degree of justice that is required. If these people have suffered injustices, these injustices must be remedied. If our seniors in this country are vulnerable, so are those coming from abroad. At committee, we will be able to see whether these people have suffered any injustice; we will have an opportunity to look at changes that could be made to Bill C-36.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to the fine performance of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Repentigny, who is the Bloc Québécois’ new critic for seniors. As the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan said, I think that this appointment will bring a sensibility to the House that was previously lacking and will impart a much higher tone to the debates on this subject.

It is a great pleasure for me to rise today on Bill C-36 which will correct, at least in part, one of the greatest injustices done to older people in Quebec and Canada.

There are several reasons why it is a particular pleasure for me, including the fact that this may have been the battle into which the Bloc Québécois member who preceded me in Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Marcel Gagnon, threw himself the most, that is to say, the battle for seniors and for the guaranteed income supplement.

I am very pleased today to see that his constant efforts over many years have now resulted in this matter reaching the public stage and the production of a bill—a bill that still needs to be improved, of course, but that still does much to correct a situation that so occupied him.

The statistics tell it all. Some 42,000 people in Quebec out of the 68,000 in 2001 will now receive the guaranteed income supplement. It will amount to as much as $6,600 a year per person.

There is another reason why I am especially happy with the progress made in this regard. The riding that I represent, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, was determined in late 2005 to be one of the 10 poorest in Canada. It is also a riding in which the number of older people is constantly increasing. These people found themselves impoverished because they could not access a program that would have helped them improve their situation, including among others the guaranteed income supplement. The result was even more poverty in the riding I represent than would otherwise have been the case. We had poverty that was fixable. The fact that it was not fixed is due to the negligence of the previous Liberal government, all to the detriment of our most disadvantaged citizens, as a number of other speakers have pointed out.

That inaction on the part of the Liberal government is truly troubling. The Department of Human Resources and Social Development had known since 1993 that many older people who were eligible for the program were not enrolled in it and were not receiving the money they were entitled to. There were 68,000 people in Quebec who were not enrolled. They did not know that they had to register.

That is absolutely scandalous. We say that we live in a developed, democratic society, when at the same time what we were seeing was scandals, speaking of the time between 1993 and today. This was quite common in the riding I represent, Saint-Maurice—Champlain. Friends of the party in power received millions of dollars under a program called the sponsorship program. Everyone knows this, and I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. The sole purpose of that program was to buy the conscience of Quebeckers. Meanwhile, that same party knew that there were people who did not have access to money that they should have been receiving. Nothing was done to correct this.

Millions of dollars were spent, handed out to friends of the party, money that was turned back over to the party on top of that. Older people, who built Quebec and Canada, were abandoned, as if those people did not need that money. Better that it should be wasted and we should help our friends.

Personally, I think it is appalling that during the same period there was a two-tier system. There were other people who did not have access to this program for a variety of reasons: in some cases, because they were illiterate; in others, they were disadvantaged by physical limitations, language barriers, problems with social integration or homelessness. Some people were living in places that were too remote, others belonged to aboriginal communities. In large majority, and at higher rates than for others, those people did not have access to the guaranteed income supplement.

Nor is the present Conservative government necessarily exempt here. When we see that illiteracy was one of the things some people did not have access to the guaranteed income supplement, we may wonder whether the recent cuts made by the Conservative government to funding for literacy groups will not have a similar effect on this program or even on other programs. People do need assistance, particularly older people, who account for a very large majority of illiterate individuals.

This is why I am serious in asking the Conservative government to review the cuts to funding for literacy groups announced last fall. These cuts could once again lead to unfairness, such as we saw with the guaranteed income supplement.

The guaranteed income supplement program is still a paradox. To me, the program's title, “guaranteed income supplement program”, seems to be just a front. For many years, no one had any guarantee that he or she would be getting benefits to improve his or her precarious financial situation. As we know, this program is for the elderly. They called it the guaranteed income supplement program, but many people did not get that guaranteed income.

Why did the government use the term “guaranteed” if the program was not going to apply to everyone? If we say that a program is guaranteed, then the guarantee must be universal. Those who designed this program should have taken all necessary measures to allow and guarantee automatic access for those who qualified, namely Canadian citizens over the age of 65 whose income is insufficient. Indeed, this program is linked to people's tax returns.

Again, one wonders why it was called the “guaranteed income supplement program”. I find that the principle of universality was not applied and that we did not facilitate access to this program, in order to help society's most needy.

I will conclude by going back to a few recommendations, particularly the one where the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities recommended that retroactive payments be made to those who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

As the hon. member for Repentigny mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will maintain pressure to ensure full and total retroactivity. After all, these people were not deprived of only half of their benefits; they did not suffer a partial prejudice. The prejudice they suffered was total because they did not get their benefits.

Once again, I think that the Bloc Québécois has done an excellent job. We will keep up the good work in the coming months, so that this legislation can be satisfactorily amended and passed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his presentation on this issue. We in the New Democratic Party as well are concerned about opening bills like this without substantive changes that can make a difference to Canadians in all places in the country.

My experience in discussing Canada pension plan issues with my constituents in northern and remote communities is that the system is not working for them. Quite clearly the cost of living is so high in those areas and seniors are living on fixed incomes under the Canada pension plan. The plan does not recognize the geographic differences that affect the cost of living for individuals. It is a real question of fairness.

In the community of Tuktoyaktuk, the cost of living is probably 200% more than the cost of living in cities such as Edmonton or Montreal. Our seniors are in dire straits. I do not know if that fits with other rural communities across the country, but would the hon. member comment on whether this pension system is working fairly across the country? Canada is such a large geographic area and the cost of living cannot always be equalized. How does the hon. member feel about this?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Obviously, a number of inequities exist in our country, and particularly in Quebec. There are probably inequities associated with the guaranteed income supplement or the old age pension.

For example, at present, the greatest inequity in Quebec has to do with the equalization system. We currently have a major fiscal imbalance, which the Bloc Québécois would like to see corrected as soon as possible.

In my opinion, the greatest inequity stems from the equalization program. That program is entirely unsatisfactory for all Quebeckers, not just for seniors.

Added to that is the inequity affecting some of our seniors, and we must certainly question several programs intended to distribute the wealth throughout Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I hear members say that they would like this legislation looked at further for substantial amendments, I wonder if they understand that it is not so easy when it comes to making substantive changes or amendments to the CPP because we have to have three-quarters of the provinces or the orders in council and three-quarters of the population to agree. To get all of these provinces together to make these changes would be a somewhat formidable task. That is why we are anxious to move forward with this legislation because that has been done to get the provinces to agree to this point to bring these changes to the act.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on whether substantive changes should be done, if this would be so easy, because even if this legislation passes, we still have to go back to the provinces.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that I certainly support the bill.

I hope to see some improvements to certain recommendations, particularly the recommendation concerning retroactivity. I am aware that Bill C-36 is a first step, which will allow us to eventually go even further with respect to providing support for seniors.

I firmly believe that this is an interesting bill and that it constitutes a first step, since it corrects several injustices. However, we must not think that our work can stop as soon as the bill is adopted. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities must continue its in-depth study to determine whether there are other ways to improve the situation of our seniors.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his speech.

It is almost a year since I was elected as a Bloc Québécois member. In my previous life, I was a social worker, and I managed a community organization that worked with vulnerable and disadvantaged seniors. We had a service called the tax clinic, in which we helped and encouraged seniors to fill out their income tax returns. Every time, we were very surprised—because the volunteers were well trained—that we had to tell seniors that they could apply for the guaranteed income supplement. To my great astonishment, I met several dozen seniors who had been entitled to it for a number of years but who had not sent in the form.

When you meet the elderly you are often struck by the anxiety they feel. A simple government logo on a letter can frighten them, because they do not really know how to communicate with offices to get access to forms and other documents.

I am giving you very tangible evidence of the need for legislation like this. However, I would like my colleague to explain, once again, why it is so important to provide for complete retroactivity. Because there are still a lot of seniors who have not been paid back or who are affected by the fact that information was not communicated appropriately.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. The Bloc Québécois has indeed made the question of retroactivity a priority.

I would point out again that the elderly are one of the most vulnerable groups, as the member explained. They are vulnerable, first, because of pressure from society and from government bodies. That pressure means that for them it is very often much too complicated to file applications. They always imagine that they are not entitled, that they will not be covered because of some exception. Often, because of bad experiences they had in the past, their first reaction is not necessarily to seek out people to help them, in order to get access to money that would help them, in this instance the guaranteed income supplement.

It is extremely important—to point this out one more time—to provide them with full retroactive payment. In fact, these people were entitled to that money for a number of years and did not receive it. We know that money is important, particularly for older people, who are much more fragile. Obviously, we talk a lot about the health of older people. Their health is much more fragile, and often having better income also has a positive impact on their health, because they are able to obtain additional services. Sometimes, because they do not have the income they need, some seniors will go without medications when they need them.

That is one more reason for the guaranteed income supplement to be paid to everyone entitled to it, obviously, but also for it to be paid retroactively to people who were entitled to it for many years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36.

This is an important legislative proposal, the amendments to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act. I wish to speak to the impact of the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan for people living with disabilities in Canada.

Canada's new government understands the need to ensure that people living with disabilities are given the support that they need. People with disabilities are our friends, our families and our constituents.

We campaigned and were elected on our commitment to stand up for Canada. Canadians were offered the priorities of our Conservative government and found that we hold all the same values dear. We all want a government that makes careful use of public resources to ensure that they are there to help our families and friends who need it.

The new government is getting things done for our friends and for our families with disabilities. For instance, budget 2006 committed enhanced assistance for persons with disabilities. This was done by increasing the maximum annual child disability benefit to $2,300. We expanded the eligibility for the same benefit. We boosted the maximum refund for the medical expense supplement to $1,000, and HRSDC has put together labour market agreements and the opportunity fund for persons with disabilities.

Canadians want what we are all looking for. We want a government that understands that the federal government and provinces need to work together constructively. Canadians can take heart. The legislation comes as a result of a healthy and renewed relationship that our new government has forged with our provincial partners.

Most Canadians recognize the importance of the Canada pension plan to their income security. Along with old age security, the Canada pension plan provides Canadians with the foundation upon which to build their retirement income. Together, Canada's public pensions deliver about $54 billion in benefits to Canadians every year.

However, the Canada pension plan is much more than a retirement pension. Through its disability program, the Canada pension plan provides basic coverage to approximately 295,000 Canadians with severe and prolonged disabilities and to 90,000 of their children. Indeed, the Canada pension plan is considered the largest long term disability insurance program in Canada.

Every three years the ministers of finance review the Canada pension plan to ensure that it remains financially sound and to make any necessary adjustments. The triennial review also provides an opportunity to see that the Canada pension plan evolves to meet the changing needs of Canadians throughout their lives. It also exemplifies that the CPP's accountability and transparency is there for Canadians.

The most recent review, completed in June, confirmed that the Canada pension plan is on solid financial footing, but the review also showed that together we could all do a better job of recognizing contributors with long term attachment to the workforce by making their CPP disability benefits more accessible.

Federal and provincial finance ministers understood that it was time to address an issue that has been raised as a concern by people living with disabilities, their representatives and members of the House. The ministers listened to the people who came to them. They took on the issue. They showed leadership that had been lacking by pursuing this change.

There has always been a minimum qualifying period for CPP disability benefits since they were first issued in 1970. Over the years this qualifying period has been amended on several occasions. For example, from 1987 to 1997, applicants needed contributions in two of the three years or five of the last 10 years to qualify for disability benefits.

In 2003 Parliament heard from long term contributors who were ineligible for benefits because of the change requiring contributions in four of the last six years that was introduced in 1998.

What followed was a report prepared by the chief actuary regarding Canadians with a long history of workforce attachment and who were denied CPP disability benefits on the grounds that they had insufficient contributions. The study found many of these applicants had contributed for two or three years of the minimum qualifying period but had not done so for a fourth year. Without that fourth year of contributions they could not qualify for benefits under the existing rules despite in some cases more than 30 years of overall contributions.

Imagine a woman who has worked steadily for 25 years and has contributed faithfully to the Canada pension plan, including for three of the last six years. She feels that these substantial contributions will give her access to disability benefits when she needs them. Suddenly a major medical condition takes her out of the workforce and then she discovers that she does not qualify. She needed to contribute to the CPP for one more year before she could qualify. Imagine her sense of disappointment and frustration. Despite her lengthy contributions to the Canadian workforce her Canada pension plan disability benefit was not there for her when she needed it.

As I said at the outset, Canadians elected Conservatives to stand up for them. They elected us because they knew we understood them and their concerns. We were elected by Canadians because they knew we would get things done and we are getting things done. The government is acting to ensure that thousands of Canadians who are long term contributors to the CPP are not left alone to fall through the cracks. We stand with them and we are standing up for them.

I am pleased to say that Bill C-36 is a positive response to the desire for greater fairness expressed by the Minister of Finance. It is an obvious response to the needs of persons with disabilities whose concerns were too long ignored.

Under the proposed legislation, applicants with 25 or more years of contribution would become eligible for benefits if they contributed in three rather than four years. All other applicants would still have to make contributions in at least four of the last six years and of course all applicants must still meet the medical eligibility requirements.

What does this legislation mean for Canadians? It means an additional 2,000 long term contributors with severe and prolonged disabilities would be eligible to receive benefits by 2008. By 2010 the new beneficiaries could total about 3,700. Close to 1,000 children of these beneficiaries could also receive benefits.

Through this legislation the Government of Canada is sending an important message to long term contributors to the Canada pension plan who are forced to leave the workforce because of a severe and prolonged disability. It says that Canadians have told us that the current disability program does not meet their needs. It says that we have heard their concerns and we are acting on them.

This legislation is part of the government's commitment to greater accountability and to action that restores the public's trust in government. It says the government balances the social needs of Canadians within an accountable and transparent fiscal framework. The legislation change is fully affordable at the current CPP contribution rate and will not compromise the financial sustainability of the plan.

It pleases me that other members of the House are in fact agreeing to support this important bill that will help our Canada pension plan. It also tells me that everyone, along with our new government, understands that seniors have made contributions and continue to make huge contributions to our country. Seniors know that Conservatives and the House share the same values and concerns as they do, and that these are the values and concerns of all Canadians. We all understand that sometimes the world changes and that we need a government that will ensure that seniors are not left behind.

We recognize a commitment to the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement as fundamental guarantees of income security in retirement years. We promise to ensure that seniors have the respect and integrity that they deserve. Our pension plan has been integral in dramatically reducing the level of poverty among seniors. Back in 1980 almost 21% of seniors lived on low incomes. Today, because of changes that were made, we have reduced that number to less than 6%.

To address presently changing needs of seniors, we are making significant investments across a full range of seniors programs, from health care to housing, from retirement savings programs to assistance for caregiving. We have shown support in budgeting for seniors: $64 billion a year on programs for seniors, including our public pension programs.

Our public pension programs are something Canadians can rightly take pride in. Our public pension system is recognized worldwide as one of the best. It plays a vital role in ensuring the economic well-being of thousands of Canadians.

Today seniors are generally healthier, better educated and economically better off than in previous generations. Today's seniors are looking for new ways to contribute to their country. Seniors work longer, volunteer more, and play an active role in the communities across Canada.

As the baby boomer generation marches toward retirement, we need to take steps to prepare for the growing number of seniors. I am one of those baby boomers and I am concerned that in the next 25 years nearly one in four Canadians will be a senior citizen. The aging of our population means that we cannot take our cherished public pension programs for granted.

We understand that the future of these programs is a matter that affects all Canadians. This is why our new government is strengthening our social foundations. Standing up for seniors mean ensuring these programs are there for seniors now and in the years to come. As well, Conservatives and all Canadians understand that the retirement income system, the Canada pension plan and old age security are key pillars of Canada. These pillars must be maintained and cared for if they are to be counted on to maintain and care for the needs of Canadians.

Something also important to Canadians are the changes proposed in the bill that will improve the way governments administer pension programs. Together these amendments strengthen fairness and accountability. In the past, concerns have been raised that eligible seniors may not be receiving the guaranteed income supplement because they were not aware of the program and did not apply. Much has been done already to remedy such situations. This legislation, however, goes one step further.

To explain, under the proposed changes seniors apply for GIS at the same time as they apply for old age security. No separate application form would be required. In addition, as long as seniors file a regular tax return they will automatically receive the GIS benefit in any year they are entitled to. They would never need to reapply. This cut in red tape makes sense. It is the kind of sensible thinking that our new government has put into creating “Advantage Canada”. In a nutshell, it means that all eligible seniors should receive the GIS as long as they file a Canadian tax return.

The same sensible thinking is what led our new government to propose amendments to the Canada pension plan that are found in the bill that I spoke about earlier, making it easier for long time contributors to qualify and working Canadians who are attached to the workforce. Canadian seniors, men and women whose hard work helped build this country, deserve to have a government that stands up for them and I am proud to be a part of this government. I am proud that we are taking steps to put in effect the existing full funding provision of the Canada pension plan.

The new provision adds transparency to the existing provision, which requires any changes to the plan's benefit be paid for in full so their costs are not passed on to the future.

This is what Canadians want to know, that CPP is on sound, financial footing now and for future generations. This change would help get that done.

Our new government will also be modernizing service delivery, to ensure electronic services for pensions are available for seniors across the country, a simple, practical thing in this modern age of technology. However, a change to the legislation was needed to enable seniors to apply for benefits online.

These amendments would also close loopholes and prevent misrepresentation, which ends up costing all taxpayers.

Enhancements to our retirement income system are one of the ways we are helping to improve the quality of life for Canadian seniors. As I said earlier, the government is doing even more. Let me give a few quick examples.

We are reaching out to seniors across the country, thanks to our new horizons for seniors program. Through this program, we are helping to harness energy, skills and leadership of seniors and projects that make a difference in their communities. Consider the grandfriends program in Prince Edward County, where seniors are giving back to their community by acting as storytellers to children.

Canada's new government promised new measures to provide tax breaks for older Canadians, and we got it done in budget 2006. Starting in 2007, seniors couples can split their pension income. We increased the age credit amount by $1,000 to $5,066, retroactive to January 1, 2006. We doubled the amount of eligible pension income that can be claimed under the pension income credit from $1,000 to $2,000, starting this tax year.

Through these tax measures, we are putting back into the pockets of our seniors who have already contributed to so much in our country.

Our new government is standing up for those who have spent their lives raising families, saving for their retirement and building up our nation. We are standing up seniors because we are committed to protecting what is great about Canada.

With the proposed amendments in Bill C-36, we will are helping to ensure that all Canadians, young and old alike, can rely on the Canadian pension plan and old age security as key pillars of their retirement income.

This important matter crosses party lines. I am happy and pleased to say that everyone in the House wants what is best for seniors. That is why I am thankful that hon. colleagues in the opposition, along with us, have given their stamp of approval to this important legislation.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues have previously drawn attention to the extreme poverty in which most seniors live. Very often this poverty is caused by the fact that they do not even know they are entitled to a guaranteed income supplement.

At present, there is a bill tabled before this House. This bill is designed to correct certain imperfections in the current law. I listened carefully to the presentation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and the member for Blackstrap.

I would like her to explain why this bill, which aims to correct an injustice, does not go so far as to ensure real justice by granting full retroactivity to those who in any case will realize they were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.

The bill limits retroactivity to just 11 months. By what accounting or human logic can the present government place this limit on retroactivity? As many have pointed out, when money owed by citizens or businesses to the government is involved, retroactivity is full, regardless of the number of years the government has been owed the debt. Can she explain to me what human logic and sentiments are behind this limit on retroactivity?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I like to think that we are talking about prudence in our public coffers, how money is spent and how programs are delivered.

Our chief actuary estimates that the number of beneficiaries will double by 2030, I believe. The old age security program is not supported by contributions. It is supported by the public purse, by the general revenue. It is $28 billion per year, which is 14% of our total government expenditures.

Think of a program of taxpayers dollars coming out of general revenue. If we put that in perspective, I would think that we are doing this in the best interests of the people who are paying into that fund. To compare it to the government trying to collect taxes is a little different. Those taxes are being paid into that fund and those persons are getting out of paying into something that they rightfully owe, and that is their taxes to the general revenues.

I would hardly compare those two, but I would try to put in perspective what this costs us. It is quite generous to go back one year because the guaranteed income supplement is calculated in the current tax year. I would like the member to think about it before we talk about retroactivity any more. I would like him to think about what this would mean.

Why would we spend our resources and time trying to go back? How many years would we go back? How many of these people would still qualify or would have just qualified for one year? All the work that we would have and the resources to go into that would in fact be better spent by continually trying to find good programs and provisions in the act. Some of these changes are going to cost us some dollars and some tax money.

I hope he will understand this. We talk about old age security and guaranteed income supplement. When we talk about the general revenue, 14% of the general revenue is spent on old age security, or $28 billion a year.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the concern from other members of the House this morning on what they see in their communities with regard to seniors living below the poverty line and the hardships they are facing.

I am glad the parliamentary secretary feels that the Conservatives were elected because they understood the concerns of seniors and that they did not want to see any seniors left behind. However, as we have heard from other members, seniors are falling through the cracks, and I have seen this myself.

We know that women who earn less then men are doubly impacted. Aboriginal women even earn less so there is a double whammy for them.

When I read that about a quarter of a million seniors are living below the poverty line, there is nothing in increases in income for the OAS and GIS. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me if the government will be increasing the supplements to seniors so they can live with dignity and have a better opportunities? We know that living in poverty also creates more health problems.

Could the parliamentary secretary commit that the government will raise the OAS and GIS for seniors?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I started to articulate earlier about some of the scenarios that had been put before us today on some of the conditions in which seniors live. Many of these conditions are the result of poor management on the part of provincial governments.

I just came off a three week tour of my riding of Blackstrap. I went through senior citizens homes in rural Saskatchewan. Hospitals are being closed. We are not being heard in rural Saskatchewan. Our province seems to be ignoring this. This is why I hope we can pass legislation like this to at least do what we can. The federal government can only do so much for these seniors. Some of the conditions seniors in Saskatchewan are living in today are the result of very high medical costs in the province. Some drugs are not covered. Some of our hospitals and senior residences are closing. Some people are being taken out of their communities.

One of the official opposition members said yesterday that sometimes seniors needed support. It is not all about money. Some of it means good community support. I would like to take every member of the New Democratic Party to Saskatchewan for a tour to see how some people live under the NDP government there. I am trying to put some stories together to show that it has ignored its seniors and its people.

The federal government is listening and we are--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we have one more question we want to fit in.

The hon. member for Chambly--Borduas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member and parliamentary secretary to actually answer the question from the member for Alfred-Pellan.

I am disconcerted to see that when she is asked why the Conservative government refuses to pay the guaranteed income supplement to seniors—to which they are entitled retroactively—she answers that we have to be careful with public funds. This is quite disconcerting.

The primary function of the guaranteed income supplement is in fact to be careful with the finances of our most disadvantaged citizens in order to help them. That is something she is not taking into consideration.

This was a right and it is still a right. This right should be retroactive because seniors have been deprived of it. Owing to their isolated situation, they have remained unaware of this right.

I would like the parliament secretary to answer the question properly. If she does not do so, I invite her to listen again to what she said, because it does not make any sense.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how far back they want to go, but we do offer retroactivity. This has been done in a prudent manner and with the good guidance of the finance minister. Our department is doing what is prudent with retroactivity. The program is trying to duplicate what is done in other provinces. That is what retroactivity does. It is in the best interests of those who make the decisions on retroactivity.

When the member talked about retroactivity, I understood him to say that it would go back a long time. I do not think that would be possible. How far back would one want to start retroactive payments? We do that already. We are trying to look forward. We want to ensure this does not happen again. The positive parts of the bill will make it so this never happens again.

I invite the member to help us ensure it does not happen again by finding a way to reach those people who are not registered through the income tax system. If the member could help with some solutions--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are days when what we do in this House is agreeable and other days when it is less so. Today, I believe we are having a positive and constructive debate on this legislative measure. Several years ago, I saw the Bloc Québécois member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Marcel Gagnon, take the offensive against a federal government that was very insensitive in dealing with this question of the guaranteed income supplement.

Let us remember that it was discovered that 272,000 people in Canada, including about 68,000 in Quebec, were not receiving the guaranteed income supplement, not because they were not eligible for it, or because they had been denied it, but because they had not been given the means to apply for it. This was the result of the somewhat obsessive war on the deficit.

The rules for employment insurance were tightened considerably, such as an increase in the number of weeks to qualify for benefits, a reduction in the number of benefit weeks to which people are entitled, and a reduction in the percentage of benefits, and this was done to take money out of the pockets of the worst off in order to pay down the federal deficit. The federal government also used the guaranteed income supplement for the same purpose.

This whole scandal was brought out into the light of day and Mr. Gagnon, along with all the Bloc members, set out on a tour of Quebec. We organized meetings in senior citizens clubs and with the Association québécoise de défense des retraités. We also held meetings with younger people who realized that their parents did not have access to this program because they did not have the information they needed. It was then that we realized just how terrible the situation had become. It took some time for the federal government to react.

In contrast, there are some issues on which the government acts much more quickly. When we owe money on our income tax, for example, the government reaches as far back as five years to recover the money that is due. However, when the federal government owes money to older people for the guaranteed income supplement, the maximum retroactivity is 11 months.

Once again today, in the debate on this bill, which will improve the situation on a number of counts, full retroactivity is still being denied, not to people who are 30, 35, 40 or 50 years old but to people who have contributed to our society throughout their whole lives, people who often are in very difficult personal situations.

Speaking about people who found themselves in this situation—and I recall meeting some—they were, for example, women who had never worked outside the home and whose husbands assumed responsibility for all financial matters, women whose husbands brought home the pay cheque and who were left with nothing when their husbands died. For many years, these women were not entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, although they would have been if we had only instituted an automatic assessment of their rights a few years ago. Often they have lived three, four, five or eight years in unacceptable poverty. If we had only taken the attitude that the guaranteed income supplement should be paid to anyone who needs it, if our policy had been based on that philosophy, we would not be here today discussing this bill. At least we can say now as parliamentarians that, even though it is many years late in coming because of the federal government’s slowness to institute changes, we are finally going to correct part of the problem. The automatic calculation feature will really help to correct the situation and ensure that people receive the guaranteed income supplement in due course.

What is the guaranteed income supplement for the people who are listening to us and do not know? There is an old age security program in Canada to provide an income to people who have reached 65 years of age. In addition, the guaranteed income supplement was developed for people who have no income other than this federal government income because we know very well that the basic amount is not enough for today’s cost of living. Even with the guaranteed income supplement, I can assure the House that people who receive the maximum are not wasting it. Fortunately, our seniors are accustomed to economizing and they manage ultimately to reach a satisfactory standard of living. There has been an improvement in the income of older people in comparison with 60 years ago. There has been an increase and that is very good because these people really deserve it.

However, a few corrections are in order. I would like to give you an example of something that does not appear in the bill. I realized that there was a problem, a fundamental flaw, in the indexing formula for old age security. It is calculated on the basis of a basket of goods and services purchased by the average Canadian consumer. Seniors have expenses that most people do not. They have to buy special equipment for their homes. For example, they may need an additional handrail in the bathtub.

There are other kinds of expenses, such as the cost of medication and alterations to the home. Many of these expenses far exceed the nominal inflation we see happening today. If old age security is indexed at 2%, that means people will systematically be losing money. Yet they adapt. It can be very frustrating to receive a cheque for $.55 or $1.05 more every three or six months while at the same time, the extra bills come in for medication, unexpected health issues or a death in the family. All such situations must be taken into account, and I would like the federal government to study this matter.

Instead of determining the inflation rate based on a conventional basket of goods and services, the government should use a special basket for seniors. This would ensure indexing that corresponds to the increase in their cost of living, not that of average Canadians. This bill aims to improve a number of things in this regard. It is pretty good, but it should go further. One good thing about the bill is that it mentions ongoing renewal, clarity of legislation and waiving the requirement for a renewal application for the guaranteed income supplement and allowance benefits once an initial application has been made.

In contrast to many government programs, people who may be 75, 78, 80 or 85 have to reapply each year. We will change that. It makes no sense that it has taken five years to reach this point, but the bill before us will at least take care of that. The bill also contains provisions to ensure that the legislation is clearer and more consistent and to reflect its true intent. This means that this was not done in the past. As my colleague said earlier, the true intent of the legislation is to provide income for people who have no other source of income and who absolutely need that money to live. The legislation is not intended to save the government money; it is not intended to pay people as little as possible; it is intended to give people what they are entitled to. We hope that the legislation will reflect this intent. There is also a need to simplify the reporting of income for couples and seniors.

For example, for seniors who apply for income-tested benefits and who have suffered a loss of income due to the termination or reduction of employment or pension income, this change would facilitate the application process by requiring that seniors report estimated pension and employment income only. This means that there will be a sort of safety net when unforeseen circumstances arise, so that we can make adjustments during the course of the year. Often, in practice, seniors are faced with a sudden expense. They withdraw money from an RRSP to pay it, and this amount is added to their income for the previous year, which reduces the amount they receive in the current year. We regularly see such cases in our riding offices, and we need to find ways to make the program more flexible, so that people are not penalized by such situations.

Spouses will no longer be required to provide marital and income information that has already been provided by their spouse or common-law partner. In practice, there will be one less obstacle. However, this transmittal of personal information must be carried out properly. With past practices, caution was required to ensure appropriate processing. What happened with the guaranteed income supplement also occurred with American pensions. As I was explaining earlier, it was during the same period where as much money as possible had to be collected and as little as possible was to be disbursed.

That was the 1994-95 period, under the former Liberal government. At that time, it was decided that an additional tax would be applied to American pensions. In the end, citizens in the same situation were penalized.

This situation has yet to be corrected. I hope that the federal government will examine this issue in the coming weeks and months so that justice may also be served for these individuals.

The Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C-36 will make it easier for disadvantaged seniors to access the guaranteed income program by providing for automatic renewal of guaranteed income benefits to couples on the basis of a single tax return. This is an interesting aspect of this bill. It is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

The bill will allow seniors who have had a sudden drop in their employment income or their retirement income during a fiscal year to apply for the guaranteed income supplement based on an approximate statement of their employment and pension incomes. As I was saying earlier, this is another positive point. In a way it provides a credit or evaluation opportunity during a year when a senior's financial situation suddenly deteriorates. The situation can be adjusted immediately rather than waiting until the following year. What people buy with their old age security or guaranteed income supplement cheques is real. They are not stashing it away. This money is for covering daily expenses.

It can be shocking to go into homes or residences where seniors live in Quebec and Canada to see how people have to come up with small miracles to make ends meet with the money they receive. If there is a sudden change in their income or an unexpected expense in the family, for the couple or the person living alone, that is a major problem. The bill provides another positive aspect in that regard.

The bill also clarifies some sections of the Old Age Security Act in order to correct inconsistencies. This is also important. It also makes changes to the Canada pension plan. This does not affect Quebec or its constitutional responsibilities in any way. We are being vigilant and want to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are protected.

Generally speaking this is a bill that will improve the situation. However, there are a certain number of items we would like to go over in committee, unless the government comes back with another bill. The first item is the way this bill broadens the restrictions on immigrants who are new Canadian citizens. We will have to look at the impact of such a measure because the Bloc Québécois cannot agree to having different classes of Canadian citizens, regardless of their journey to get here.

In this case, we are talking about sponsored immigrants, that is those who were able to come here with the help of a sponsor. Under the bill before us, there could be situations where the income provided by the sponsor could be taken into account in the calculations with regard to the guaranteed income supplement while, technically, I think the person should simply be deemed entitled to the GIS. People who act as sponsors are not all millionaires.

Immigration here often means that a factory worker brings his father or his mother to this country. The person settles here and meets the eligibility requirements with regard to the number of years for example. At some point, if the money provided by the sponsor has to be taken into account in calculating the guaranteed income supplement, it penalizes the sponsor. In some way, the senior's personal situation is actually hurting his or her family's situation. I think this issue could be addressed in committee.

There is another aspect that was raised several times by my colleagues and that really needs to be addressed by the government. It is the last key element needed to make the system totally fair, and I am talking about retroactivity. Currently, retroactivity is limited to 11 months. Why 11 months for the guaranteed income supplement and five years for taxes owed to the government? This double standard is unacceptable.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier that sound management of public funds will be a factor. That is the same argument that was used by the Liberals when they did not want to make changes to the GIS.

They argued that doing the automatic calculation every year would involve significant costs and that they did not know what they would amount to, and that we had to be careful.

As a result of pressure, the representations made by the political parties and the initiative of the Bloc Québécois, that argument was refuted with regard to automatic calculation. The question of retroactivity should now be dealt with in the same way. Let us be honest: the only reason why the government is refusing to do this is that it will have to pay out large amounts of money to make up for the negligence of the system.

An injustice or inequity must not be tolerated simply because a significant expense will be incurred. If there are errors that result directly from automatic calculation and a person is entitled to retroactive payment for a number of years, it would be entirely reasonable for retroactive payment to reflect a five-year period or the maximum period. If the right thing is done properly and at the right time, instead of being 11 months it may be 14 months, 18 months or two years. It may not be as drastic as that in all situations. There is a way of developing a system that is tight enough that the overall cost will not be too high at the end of the road.

What we have today is the result of the rather disastrous management of the past.

At present, in terms of retroactivity, there is certainly a larger amount owing. I think it is on the order of $3 billion for all of Canada. However, if the system is managed properly and we go ahead with a tight system, that amount will decline and it will be much lower in the years to come. This is therefore an important factor.

The Bloc Québécois will take the opportunity offered by debate on this bill to continue its battle and to tell seniors that they should be entitled to this retroactive payment. Yes, we are going to continue working to ensure that everyone who is entitled to the guaranteed income supplement is able to receive it.

This system was developed in Canada to enable these people to receive a certain amount of money, but it also helps to keep the economy going. We have to remember the time when neither the old age pension nor the guaranteed income supplement existed. People did not live nearly as long. Some people's lives involved much greater hardship than they do today. Part of that situation has been remedied. Now, we must continue to improve the system. That includes retroactivity and appropriate indexation for seniors.

We must examine more thoroughly the poverty issue of women living alone, for example, or when one of the spouses dies. When the husband dies and the wife remains alone, the surviving spouse must suddenly face major additional expenses.

Is the current survivor's benefits program adequate? Could an additional effort be made? We must examine these conditions as a whole. The bill we are debating today will not resolve all these issues. However, the committee must feel very comfortable about broadening these recommendations to make suggestions along these lines.

Concerning the expansion of the third party group to which the contributor's personal information could be provided, we must ensure that the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner is heard.

The Privacy Commissioner will have to examine the best way to ensure that personal information can be provided to various government stakeholders. Does this respect the protection of personal information? Does the individual give his or her authorization? To what does he or she give it? How will it be used? We will have to ensure that no action exceeds the limits.

The provision of personal information collected in the guaranteed income supplement reports and the direct link with the taxation agency must not be made to the detriment of the individual, and the latter must be informed of the type of exchange. We will then be able to guarantee that statistics will not be used improperly. The changes to regulations must not limit access to the guaranteed income supplement. The Bloc will keep a close watch on this.

Automatic assessment is very nice, but some sort of regulation before approval should not make qualification more complicated. We will follow this closely, because our seniors deserve that respect. There must be a spirit and a policy.

I will conclude by saying that this has been a long-fought battle. Marcel Gagnon, a former member of the Bloc Québécois, did extraordinary work on this issue. Today, he must be pleased that part of the result has been achieved, but he expects an equal measure of fairness on the retroactive side. Thank you.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is of special interest to residents in my riding, especially the disability eligibility provisions.

This past month a constituent of mine came to my office and told me a very sad story. He contributed for some 25 years to the Canada pension plan. He was hurt on the job and went on worker's compensation for two years. Of course those two years do not qualify under the total years worked under Canada pension plan. He then struggled to go back to work for three years but was then diagnosed with inoperable terminal cancer. He does not qualify for disability benefits. Now in his waning years he does not have the income that he needs to at least make his life reasonably comfortable. The fact is that this is not an uncommon experience across Canada and many individuals are in the same position.

Since the member and his party seem to support this legislation, is his party also prepared to expedite the passage of the legislation through committee stage, third reading and then through the Senate?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, and as my colleagues pointed out earlier, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We intend to support it. There will be no filibustering tactics to prevent this bill from being adopted. However, I would personally like the committee to hear witnesses on the various issues that I raised, including making retroactive payments to those who should have been receiving guaranteed income supplement benefits over the past two or three years.

My point is the same as the one made by my colleague with his example. If someone who has been making sacrifices for two or three years because his or her income was low—and if that person qualified for the guaranteed income supplement, it is because his or her income was indeed quite low—suddenly finds out that he or she should have been getting the supplement, it seems to me that we should be able to come up with a solution to deal with this situation. The committee could hear witnesses on this issue, and also people with disabilities or health problems. We should ensure consistency among all the government policies, the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan—in the case of Quebec—and the superannuation system. Just because these programs are interrelated does not mean that if we give benefits to one group, we should deprive others from benefits that they are already getting and that they also need.

The Bloc Québécois has taken this issue seriously for many years and has fought very hard for it. One of my best moments as a member of Parliament was to take the initiative of organizing a tour and ask if public servants would come with me and meet people who did not know what the guaranteed income supplement was, even though they should have been getting it. Dozens of Bloc Québécois members did likewise. This enabled us to make very good contact with people who have dedicated their lives to their families, to our society. Whenever we would meet 50 or 60 of these people, there would be two or three or four in that situation. Sometimes, someone aged 33 or 35 would be present at the meeting and would tell us that he or she was going to check things out, because his or her parents were not getting the guaranteed income supplement when they should be receiving it. This kind of positive action has produced interesting results. Today, it is reflected in part in the bill. Consequently, we will support this legislation, but we will expect the government to continue to work to ensure that the program becomes fair in every respect. This will be achieved by ensuring full retroactivity.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on his speech in which he aptly outlined all the problems related to income benefits for seniors.

Among all the roles he has played in the House of Commons for the Bloc Québécois, my colleague was at some point responsible for human resources and social development. I know he was very interested in having this injustice corrected for seniors who were entitled to those payments and was very active in that regard.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary mentioned in her response the complexity of making those retroactive payments as a reason for refusing to make the payments. My colleague mentioned the fact that, in 2001, there were 272,000 people in Canada who had not received those retroactive payments, including 68,000 in Quebec. Having those numbers means that it was possible to identify those people who did not receive the retroactive payments. Therefore, identification is not the problem.

I know my colleague has also examined the whole issue of recovering money owed. For example, when someone has committed a fraud in the past or has inadvertently withheld money from the government, these sums are recovered retroactively and it is often done in entire communities.

Does my colleague believe that it is indeed a problem or are there ways for the government to ensure justice for these people?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, there remains one door to open. As for arguments such as those of the parliamentary secretary, let us hear no more of them. The government has a responsibility to ensure that its programs are administered fairly.

In fact, 272,000 people were identified. They were not receiving the guaranteed income supplement although they were entitled to it. The same applies to probably some 68,000 people in Quebec. Some of those people were located and a certain number received retroactive payments of up to 11 months when that was possible. However, there are cases where people were owed sums of money covering a period of two, three, four or five years. Had those amounts been paid—it is sad to say—some seniors would have been able to live out their lives with dignity. On that issue, there is no administrative argument for denying that right. We must find ways to make it happen.

If a decision was made to reach agreement in good faith with these people just as the Canada Revenue Agency is prepared to accept a compromise to some degree when someone owes money to it; if the federal government adopted a similar attitude to deal with retroactive claims that would be significant progress.

Let us accept as a starting principle that these people are entitled to retroactive payments and let us provide a retroactive period that is much greater than 11 months. If that happened, seniors in Quebec and all of Canada could consider that they are being treated fairly. Until then, we must continue to ensure that every person who is entitled to the guaranteed income supplement can receive it. We must ensure that this bill deals fairly with the issue of permanent residents. In addition, we must ensure that the next budget contains a statement about retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement. There is no reason not to do so. The minister has one or two months to think about it.

We could then feel that as parliamentarians we had done our work. It is important to create wealth in a society; but we will be judged on the way that wealth is shared. At present, that wealth is not being distributed fairly. It is being done to the detriment of the most unfortunate members of our society. We have a particular social responsibility on this side and we expect the government to move on this matter.

In any event, on the Bloc Québécois side we have begun the battle. We will continue to fight and we will not let up until the people have obtained justice in terms of the retroactive payments that are owed to them by the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this issue today. It stems from a government bill, namely Bill C-36, to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

We are pleased with this initiative, but only to some extent. As previous speakers have mentioned, this is an initiative to make access to the guaranteed income supplement simpler and more practical by streamlining the process. This is something we have been calling for for many years, but have been systematically turned down by both the previous government and, for the past year, this government.

Because it deals with the old age security program, this bill also affects the benefits paid to pensioners, and particularly the guaranteed income supplement.

A problem arose, which my colleagues have raised, where low income seniors had to meet two criteria: age—they had to be 65 years old—and the number of years of residence in the country. These were the two criteria for applying, provided, of course, they had limited income. In this respect, however, regulations were made, which restricted and, in many cases, prevented access to the supplement.

My hon. colleague pointed this out earlier. In 2001, there were 272,000 people in Canada who were denied access for objective reasons that I will get into later. In Quebec, 68,000 individuals were affected. Our colleague Marcel Gagnon, who was the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain at the time, fought tirelessly to have more of them receive the supplement, providing them with information about their rights and helping them, naturally, with the appropriate procedures.

The objective reasons I referred to were of the following nature. People were told they had to reapply each year. Many were not even aware that they were eligible for this supplement and, thus, did not apply for it the first year. Others did not know about the requirement to reapply annually.

Which of these people were the most vulnerable? It was those in poor physical health. Often it was also a matter of mental health. And there were actual physical limitations. Among those identified are people who have never worked or who have not filed income tax returns because they did not have any income or so little income that they did not think they needed to file a return. Aboriginals have been particularly affected, as have residents of remote communities, semi-literate people, those who do not read either of Canada’s official languages, persons with disabilities, people suffering from disease and homeless people.

We see that there is a range of people who are, I would say, disabled concerning their obligations to obtain one of their rights. A further complication was added to prevent them from obtaining this right. Over the years, especially since 2001, a major offensive has been led against the previous government for it to correct the situation and, for the past year, against the current government.

So how does that translate into money?

It was between 1993 and 2001 that people began to become aware of the situation—and it continues now, but less significantly. Seniors have been deprived of $3.1 billion. These people are among the most disadvantaged in our society.

What surprises me is that this does not seem to have touched the members of the previous government very much, because they took all those years to make an effort to correct the situation. In the present government we can observe some sensitivity to correcting the situation for people applying now, but no sensitivity for the people who have been deprived of this right. The situation is serious.

I do not want to be too hard on the present government, but when it was in opposition, some of its members were outraged by this situation, just like us. What happens when these people begin governing the country? How do people end up changing their attitude to such an extent? Why, when people are in power and can correct such a large injustice, do they not do so?

The two main political parties in Canada, who have until now taken turns in government, seem to have quite a particular propensity for attacking seniors.

We must also look at the problem as a whole. One of the recurring problems is the lack of will to support older workers who are forced out of the labour force because of massive layoffs.

There was the POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, but it was abolished in 1997. POWA helped workers aged 55 and over who lost their jobs and were unable to find new jobs for various reasons, the first of which being the unwillingness of employers to show generosity in hiring older workers first. That means that these people cannot find work because of their age. Some of them worked in the same trade for 20, 30 or 40 years and it is not easy for them to learn a new one. Furthermore, an average of 20% of the people laid off these days are 55 and older.

Since 1997, the year the Liberals abolished the POWA, we have been fighting to get an income support program for older workers.

The present situation contributes to the impoverishment of seniors who retired because they reached retirement age or because they were laid off. And here, I am referring to some massive layoffs.

Last week or the week before, the government announced the creation of an expert panel to study the situation. In fact, the government made that commitment last year, during the budget debate.

It was even part of last year's budget amendments. Ten or eleven months ago, the government made the commitment to proceed very quickly with this study and was supposed to report to the House when Parliament resumed after the summer recess.

Despite the fact that, whenever we asked questions about this during the last year, the current minister's predecessor told us every time that the study was underway, that progress was being made and that we would soon see results, we learned a week and a half ago that nothing had been done and that the government was setting up a committee now to do this study. Obviously the House of Commons was not told the truth, and that is a polite way of putting it. We were told something that was not the truth because it was false to say that the study was underway when it has not even started yet.

The second problem with that committee is that workers are not represented. It is made up of representatives of organizations that do not necessarily have that expertise. Surprisingly, the human resources and social development committee toured the country last fall to examine the issue of employability in Canada. One of the issues dealt with at that time was precisely the employability of seniors. How is it that we are being told today that this committee will do exactly the same work without even waiting for the results of the work currently done by our committee, which should be released before we adjourn in the spring?

It is rather amazing to see the extent to which the government will resort to delaying tactics not to honour its obligations to seniors who lose their jobs in massive layoffs. It systematically refuses to provide income support to those people, which tends to confirm what I was saying earlier about this government's tendency to target seniors.

Back to the guaranteed income supplement. It is time for the government to deliver. The parliamentary secretary said that we have to manage public funds carefully. Then she said that it will be very difficult to reimburse the money owed to these people because they are so hard to find. Her statements do not hold water.

The first demonstrates not only a lack of sensitivity but also a lack of empathy toward the poorest people in our society because everyone knows that whatever she says about keeping public funds under lock and key, we have a government that has generated budget surpluses for the past 12 years. On September 25, the Government of Canada announced a $13 billion surplus for the past fiscal year, yet it has responsibilities to seniors who often do not have enough income to pay for basic necessities, such as food, housing, clothing and a reasonable standard of living.

This morning, our colleague from Repentigny shared with us a very moving account of his previous job experience helping these people. He told us about the suffering and the isolation they are forced to endure. This isolation is caused in large part by their low income, which makes it impossible for them to contribute to society in any way.

The parliamentary secretary also said that it is hard to find these people. But if we know how many of them there are, we must know where they are. When it was a matter of finding a way to bring money into government coffers, they had plenty of ideas, plenty of ways to do it. For example, when it came time to bring in the GST and the QST and other provincial sales taxes, they found ways. In Quebec, a harmonized sales tax was implemented. Quebec passes on the Canadian government's share: 6%. Why have we not done something similar for seniors?

Many of these seniors are forced to ask the province of Quebec for help, either through the Quebec pension plan or social assistance. Why is there no agreement? Why have we not considered that the Canadian government could correctly identify these people by their income and that Quebec also had records that could be used to conduct the appropriate verifications to ensure that the guaranteed income supplement is given to those who qualify? Why has this not been done? The answer seems just as clear to me today as in the past. There is a lack of political will, which stems from the ideology of the two political parties, one after the other, an ideology based on supporting the wealthy people of our society and the people who contribute to society by providing jobs.

We know that a minister who temporarily became Prime Minister was able to take advantage of retroactivity for his business beyond the 11 months allowed for seniors. There was no skimping on the number of years and this was done for other businesses, too. When it comes to making exceptions for corporate taxes, there always seems to be a way. The answers we are given do not pass muster and are completely unacceptable in the current context, considering the injustice committed against our seniors.

In closing, I would like to point out that I limited myself to this aspect because my colleagues discussed possible amendments to allow our eligible seniors to access the guaranteed income supplement program. I deliberately discussed retroactivity in particular because I believe that if we do not include a provision in this bill to allow for retroactivity, we would simply be maintaining the same injustice, which is entirely unacceptable.

We, the Bloc Québécois, want no part of that. We encourage our colleagues of the other parties to come to their senses, to embrace justice, to embrace their sensitivity, and finally grant our seniors the right to receive their guaranteed income supplement benefits, which they should have been receiving since 1993. Thank you.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)