Madam Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development was so happy to be able to hit the Bloc Quebecois that he did not read correctly the amendments that we are proposing. And to be able to hit even harder and with more gusto he is taking clause 2, instead of subclause (2) in clause 1.
The Minister of Human Resources Development who is going to speak afterwards should apologize to my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.
White hair is a sign of wisdom, because the amendment that we proposed is not the one that the minister mentioned. We are not opposed to speeding up the process, on the contrary. What we are opposed to, however, is senior citizens being required, without good reason, to deal with voice mail services. Yes, we are going to oppose part of these reforms, but before addressing the specifics of this bill, we have to say that it is presented as trivial, simply intended to streamline services for senior citizens or handicapped persons.
The truth is, under its trivial appearances, this bill contains provisions that we find very serious, because we believe that they open the door to abuse, and we are going to say so.
I proposed in these series of amendments that we revert to the current Act, under section 16, Reconsiderations and Appeals, because the new clause from this defender "extraordinaire" of Canada's senior citizens introduces a 90-day appeal period where there was none.
When we talk to senior citizens, seniors of all ages, it is important to remember to give them whatever time they need. We have to remember that these people often need help and are not able to reach the public servants who could give them access to a minister or an appeal board. So, we do not agree that there should be an appeal period, particularly since it is an amendment to the old legislation and we do not see why we should go backward like that.
Obviously, under the new amendment, the minister can allow a longer period for an appeal. He will decide whether there will be one or not. Generally speaking, under this bill, the minister will have a lot of discretion, and discretion in this context does not mean that he will not announce certain things, but that he will act as he pleases.
We think that where elderly persons and handicapped persons in particular are concerned, they must have as many avenues of redress as possible. They should not have to rely on the discretion of the minister, even if he is well intentioned and says that he wants to accelerate the process. The discretion is left to any minister who, at one point, could abuse this power.
Once again, I ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to apologize for the harsh words he had for my colleague. I want him to know that he is not the only one who has ideas and that he is far from being the only one to come to the defence of the elderly. I do not want to question his intentions, but our role is to see to what excesses these amendments could lead. When one knows that the whole act is based on an application which will be handled by public servants over the phone, you have to be extremely vigilant. This is our responsibility. I would even go as far as to say that this is our duty.