Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. In other words, this bill directly concerns social programs.
I am puzzled since, throughout the election campaign, the Liberals kept referring to their red book and the creation of jobs and more jobs. However, the reality is that, since they took office, the Liberals are constantly looking at cuts in social program budgets.
The social policy reform provides a good example of the cuts which this government intends to make. Under the circumstances, I feel that the current debate is essential, since it concerns the poor. This bill deals with the benefits of an important group in our society, namely our seniors, our fathers and mothers, to whom we owe so much. These people played an active role in the economic life of our communities, and they still do, often in a volunteer capacity.
Seniors in my riding are of that calibre. However, they are not exempt from the problem of poverty which confronts many elderly persons. In 1992, the average income of seniors living alone was $18,434. Moreover, 21 per cent of seniors belong to the low-income group. It is tragic to see people who helped build this country being faced with the prospect of poverty.
Regardless of what the Liberals in this House may think, the income level of many seniors coincides with the poverty line. These are real figures. Why then is the Liberal government so bent on getting tough and tightening up the social system by saving money at the expense of the poorest of the poor?
Some of the objectives of Bill C-54 are acceptable, namely, improving client services, managing programs more efficiently, and taking the necessary steps to harmonize programs. The Bloc Quebecois supports the objective of this bill which is to make the rules more flexible in order to make life easier for senior citizens. It even agrees with some of the amendments, which can only benefit seniors. However, the Bloc cannot condone the fact that savings are being achieved at the expense of already impoverished senior citizens. We must make sure that senior citizens do not lose what they have gained so far.
Despite its Good Samaritan act and all its talk about fairness, the Liberal government does want to standardize the Old Age Security programs by limiting retroactive payments to one year.
When we know that senior citizens can now receive retroactive Old Age benefits for five years, one must question what the government is doing. If it is not making it harder for senior citizens, what is it doing then? I say it is saving money by taking away from senior citizens what they had gained previously.
The Liberal government is waving a carrot, but the Bloc Quebecois knows there is a stick. As to overpayments under the Old Age Security Program, pensioners are protected against any error by officials, that is to say they would not have to repay the sums received in excess of their entitlement. Presently, the legislation has provisions for a maximum two-year retroactivity period. Bill C-54 would abolish this, saving the government between one and two million dollars.
I would like the minister to explain where these savings are coming from, and whether pensioners will be protected the way they were previously.
I would also like the Minister of Human Resources Development to explain to me the provision of the bill granting the minister the right to acquire, use and manage assets. It is quite natural that I should question this provision since the intent of the minister is far from clear in this bill. He certainly lacks openness in this case, contrary to the openness he shows as far as personal information on pensioners is concerned.
The Liberal government, although it denied against all odds that CSIS was spying, wants to increase the number of departments and agencies which will have access to personal information.
The Bloc Quebecois considers that the collection of information is legitimate, but it believes that the access to such information should be limited.
The Liberal government should clarify the rules for access to privileged information and the provisions dealing with sanctions in case of disclosure.
The integrity of this information must be respected. The government should be more specific and should demonstrate the need for a wider distribution of privileged information.
Considering that the bill in its present form fails to reinforce the confidentiality of personal information pertaining to beneficiaries of programs for seniors and that the government is saving money at the expense of the poorest members of society, and that certain measures seem obscure, I will support the amendment presented by my colleague for Argenteuil-Papineauville.
