Mr. Chair, I have a number of questions. I will ask the questions, and one or the other can answer. The question is in fact unchanged, and the minister will answer it shortly.
I would like to point out that the people denied the guaranteed income supplement were denied it—it has been admitted—because the government did not provide the information they were entitled to. I find that abnormal.
I can provide specific cases of people who did not get the money, either because they were not informed or because they were misinformed. The former minister had resolved the problem. The proof they were misinformed is that things have since been changed. Why not agree to full and complete back payments, or at least five years?
When a 70 year old couple—both of them—were denied $20,000 for five years, the government was found to be responsible. The couple gains $4,000 and loses $20,000. Why not apply the same rules to those who are owed money as to those to whom the government owes money? When money is owed to the government, retroactive payment is not limited to 11 months. Could the period of retroactive payment for seniors not be at least five years?
There has even been a class action about this. It is incredible to see the arguments the government comes up with to not give in. Yet these people are owed money.
As for the assistance you are giving, would there be a possibility—I am troubled to hear the minister saying that I am insulting him with my tone of voice,when I think my tone is as friendly as can be—to tell seniors that the $2.7 billion that will be going out over the next five years is coming out of the $3.2 billion saved? Seniors were poorly informed. They are not being given money, they are just being reimbursed. Over the past 11 or 12 years $3.2 billion has been saved and now $2.7 billion will be given back over the next 5 years, starting in 2006.
I would like to know the minster's reaction to this. I see this as a fairly honest way to settle this. We want to see seniors get full retroactivity.