Debates of June 15th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Seniors

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from Richmond, who comes from the same province as I do. I am astounded to hear him today indicate that there is no additional help needed for seniors. It is certainly not the message I get in New Westminster—Coquitlam from the seniors in my community or from the seniors in British Columbia.

I remind the member that it was not the New Democratic Party that defeated his government. It was the people of Canada who defeated his government.

Is my colleague is aware of the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of British Columbia? It has been serving seniors in B.C. for more than 50 years. It is a coalition of more than 40 seniors' organizations and represents more than 40,000 senior citizens in British Columbia. Today, on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, COSCO is sponsoring a gears in motion senior abuse awareness conference today in Vancouver.

Is the member for Richmond aware that COSCO has been calling for a number of years, lobbying the previous government and the present government, for the protection and preservation of our publicly funded universally accessible health care system? The member for Richmond does not seem to be aware that seniors are asking for this.

They have been asking for increases in GIS as one measure that would improve the status of older women who are living in poverty. They have been asking for federal funding for home support programs. They have been asking for a national pharmacare program, a senior housing programs and for financial support for seniors' organizations.

Does the member for Richmond support the goals of COSCO in British Columbia? Will he put on record that he does and that he understands that seniors need improvements in their day to day living?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I never said there should not be any more improvements toward supporting our seniors in this country. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberal government made a tremendous amount of progress over the years.

Had it not been for the NDP deal with the Conservatives last November, many more things could have been done. There would have been 10 federal and provincial agencies which would have provided more than $5 billion for the creation of thousands of new child care programs. There would have been $2 billion to fight climate change. There would have been a fully funded Kelowna accord with $5.1 billion to look after our aboriginal people. There would have been $3.5 billion for workplace training. To ease the burden of tuition, $2.7 billion in student aid would have been provided. To push for energy efficiency in Canadian homes, there would have been $1.8 billion. There would have been a lower personal tax rate and a higher personal income tax exemption. There would have been 200,000 fewer people on the tax rolls.

We could have worked together on all of those things for our seniors and other needy people in our communities, but the NDP decided on a coalition with the Conservative Party which brought down the Liberal government last November.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as my colleague gave his speech. As we know, from 1993 to 2001, the Liberal-led government trampled on the rights of Canadian seniors and deprived them of a total of nearly $3.2 billion in income. In Quebec, at least $800 million was taken, or should I say stolen, from the neediest seniors in our society. Seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement do so because they do not have sufficient income to meet all their needs.

My colleague talked a bit about this problem. I would like to hear what he has to say now that he is in opposition. What is his position on the retroactive payment that the Bloc Québécois called for in the bills it introduced during the 38th Parliament? He seems very concerned about seniors. What is his position now? Is he prepared to support motions for full retroactivity for seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement and whose rights were trampled on by his government?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to 1993 when the Liberal government of the day inherited a huge financial burden. The country had a $40 billion deficit. We had to tighten our belts to deal with the deficit. Our hands were tied and that was why we could not do anything for our seniors.

One of the first things we did after we balanced the budget was to fix the CPP system to ensure that it would be sustainable. After that we indexed the GIS to make sure our seniors were looked after.

I would be totally supportive of the retroactive proposal that my colleague talked about. One thing that is for sure is the Liberal government implemented many programs to look after seniors and the health care for all Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must confess to being a little confused. If the Liberals were so wonderful all those years, how could anybody have thrown them out of office on January 23?

The Liberal government repeatedly threatened to do away with the planned increase in the GIS leading up to the election. It was the former Liberal finance minister who threw the income trust sector into chaos undermining seniors' retirement savings. It was the same finance minister whose senior aide attacked a representative of CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, by calling him old and confused.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, were seniors old and confused when they helped to throw out his government, or were they showing the wisdom of their years in opting for a change?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason Canada has all these compassionate programs and we have created these values that look after our youth, our children, as well as our seniors is that Canadians kept the Liberals in government for 30 out of the last 40 years.

The problem is highlighted by a newspaper report, the headline of which reads, “Compassionate care goes on Tories' back burner”. The Conservatives quietly put on ice the compassionate care benefit program under the employment insurance program which allowed people to take time off and provide palliative care for family members. It is the Tories who have no compassion at all. The Conservatives stopped that program, a mere $700,000 a year, which was a 10% increase in that program. Shame on them.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the repetition that comes from the member on the opposite side never ceases to amaze me. During the election campaign I ran against the former government House leader, a member of the Liberal Party. Seniors in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek told me quite clearly that 24% of them were living in poverty thanks to the magnificent job of the former Liberal Party.

I will say the same thing to the member as I said to the former prime minister, that it was not the NDP that gave his government the boot; it was the people of Canada.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for 30 out of last 40 years when the Liberal Party was in power, the Liberals implemented many universal programs to look after seniors, children and those in need in Canada.

The problem was the NDP promised to bring down the Liberal government and promised all these things for seniors. Yet the leader of the NDP, even though the throne speech contained merely one line about seniors, claimed that he was optimistic. There was nothing at all for seniors in the budget. There was only one thing, a tax cut. This is no surprise at all from the Conservatives whose policy is that tax cuts will solve all the problems in the world.

This is what the NDP promised to Canada's seniors and in bringing down the Liberal government, what the seniors got was a mere tax cut. It is amazing that the NDP would think that would solve all the problems that seniors have in Canada.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry.

How great. How wonderful. In all the time I have been here this morning and since the debate on the NDP motion started, we have been hearing about the great things the Liberal Party did previously and what the Conservative Party will be doing now. This was all expressed with great conviction. Earlier, we heard our colleague from the Liberal Party say if this and if that. “If we had not been defeated. If you had not done that. If we did this”. There is a saying that if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. The reality is that the previous government took enough public funds away from people, from taxpayers to cause the sponsorship scandal. Starting in 1994, it made cuts in transfers to the provinces, despite the fact that these were essential to provide services for seniors and everyone else in Quebec and Canada. It has cut everywhere, and now it wants to pass itself off as a champion of seniors.

As for the current government, it lacks the commitment needed to fully recognize seniors. That is the reality. That having been said, I did not rise in the House today to address that, but rather the motion of the New Democratic Party, which, I must say, has got me baffled. It is more like a rambling saga than anything else. For one thing, I find it deplorable that we are once again presented with a motion which, for the most part, contravenes the principle of respecting provincial jurisdictions. While the intention is worthwhile—I admit that it is, I recognize that—once again, this is showing that the New Democratic Party does not understand how important the issues relating to the respect of provincial jurisdictions are.

Instead, the NDP should be addressing issues directly related to federal jurisdiction, such as the guaranteed income supplement, and demanding that it be integrated into the tax return. That way, every eligible person would automatically qualify. They could also have demanded full retroactivity, which the government should grant to people who qualified for the program but never received anything because they were not well informed. They could also have demanded immediate implementation of POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois and passed unanimously last June 9, right here in this House. Instead, in its motion, the NDP is asking us to allow even more crass and insidious meddling on the part of the government in areas of provincial jurisdiction: health, education and recreation.

During the summer recess, I would invite NDP members to find out everything that is already being done in Quebec by and for seniors, because they do not seem to know anything about it. In this, as in many other areas, Quebec is innovative and has taken the lead.

Back in 1992—we did not wait for the federal government or the UN to recognize the importance of the contribution seniors make—we established the Quebec seniors council. The council advises the minister on planning, implementing and coordinating government policies, as well as on programs and services for seniors, and recommends to the minister the implementation of programs and services designed to prevent or correct abusive situations where seniors are victims. Clearly, we do not need the federal government to do this. We are already doing what must be done.

This council is at the origin of the regional round tables of organizations that represent seniors. Also, thanks to its support in many regions, we have set up DIRA, which assists elderly victims of abuse or neglect, the Rose d'Or program, created by the FADOQ, which evaluates seniors’ residences, and various other programs. We also have the CLSCs, as my colleague was saying earlier. These are local community services centres. I do not think they exist elsewhere. Only in Quebec do we have this CLSC formula to meet the needs of citizens. This is unique to Quebec. Information programs are offered there on the dangers of falls in the home, and education and prevention services on abuse of medication. In collaboration with Kino-Québec, adapted exercise workshops are offered in the residences; this is called Vie active. There are also medical consulting, psychological support and community organization services.

And that is not all. Quebec has all kinds of community organizations that enable seniors to continue to be active, to pass on their knowledge and to share their values.

Today I would like to talk about one of these organizations, the Maison des grands-parents de Laval. Since I was one of the founders of this program, I am very familiar with the reasons why we set it up. We wanted to encourage the passing on of values and closer relations between seniors and other generations. In that we have been a great success.

The Maison des grands-parents de Laval has been in existence for five years now. Over those years, we have managed to establish closer contact with a younger clientele, to engage in activities with them and work in collaboration with various practitioners. We work in the schools, where we have programs and projects in which anonymous children write letters to anonymous seniors. These seniors are like secret grandparents, who in their letters can explain to the young people everything that is not going right in their lives. This program is greatly appreciated in the schools. Almost all the elementary schools in Laval are now participating in this program. What is more, the seniors distribute the mail: they go to pick up the letters and take them back. A team of psychologists is also working on identifying the particular problems of certain children, so that they can get immediate help.

In addition to this program, we have various others. For example, grandmothers who knit show children how to knit. Believe it or not, these children like to learn knitting, which is a lost art.

Some people who have left the Maison des grands-parents de Laval recently took part in an exceptional project, in collaboration with the Laval youth protection branch. One grandmother decided that she would make little comfort toys for the youth protection children and the children who are in a reception centre, and have none of their own things. These children go from one centre to another, and have nothing to attach themselves to, no roots. This grandmother started the project with another grandmother. The first toys for the children were left at the youth protection branch a few weeks ago. Some children from the centres were there at the time.

Each comfort toy has a little badge on which the words “Just for you” are embroidered. Each one comes with a little knitted cat or a little knitted doll.

I am telling you this to make you realize that seniors have much to offer, to do and to accomplish. They have not retired from life. They deserve much more than just suppositions and empty promises. We should really be looking after them. Provincial programs, not federal programs, are needed. To that end, the provinces need new money, additional money. This money is slow in coming, as is money for the Kyoto protocol, for greenhouse gas emissions.

Quebec deserves this money because it is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also deserves money for programs it establishes for seniors. Quebec deserves this money because it is doing different things in the health field. Quebec is different. I do not deny that the other provinces are also different. We are all unique and we should recognize this. We should not create a single program for things that are very individualized. I do not know if people eat the same things everywhere in Canada, nor do I know if people engage in the same activities everywhere in Canada. But I do know that Quebec looks after its seniors. I also know that to continue to look after them and to enable them to live a rich and active life, there must be money to help them.

Unfortunately, I must vote against the New Democratic Party motion, not because I do not believe in its ideas, but simply because its ideas are not appropriate in this context.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Laval on her passionate speech. It is easy to see that her broad experience with this issue is a major asset to this House.

It is quite surprising in this debate that they want global solutions when local services provide the best answer. I think that is what my colleague from Laval was trying to say when she talked about the need to be close to seniors to be well informed of their needs and expectations.

Rather than try to create new interferences and new tools, let us look at existing programs such as the Program for Older Worker Adjustment (POWA), and providing retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement.

I would like the hon. member for Laval to continue to illustrate this need for the federal government to invest in programs. We want unconditional money transfers and that is certainly not what this motion is proposing.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but true. This motion could have done a lot of good for seniors in Quebec and Canada.

We could have talked simply about adapting services to seniors in various federal government programs, like Canada Post, which is now eliminating delivery to some rural routes. Seniors sometimes have to travel 5 or 10 miles to get their mail. There is also the example of the Canada Revenue Agency and the matter of pensions. When you call the department, sometimes you have to wait three hours before you can talk to someone—if you are lucky.

Nonetheless, I will remind my colleagues from the New Democratic Party that if they truly want to help seniors, they should support the requests of the Bloc Québécois on resolving the fiscal imbalance, on adequate transfers for provincial responsibilities, on the guaranteed income supplement and on POWA.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Bloc's perspective of saying that this intervenes on Quebec's jurisdiction. Previously in the House we had a vote where the New Democrats supported a Bloc motion on an issue related to oil and gas pricing and that issue was actually a provincial issue. One of the monitoring issues that we were looking at is being done in other provinces. In fact, four provincial governments have special legislation to regulate the price of gasoline.

How is it that Bloc members can conveniently pick things which they say are under Quebec's jurisdiction, while at the same time propose motions which have provincial jurisdiction and vote for them in this chamber? There is a direct correlation with the price of gasoline and the things that we actually pushed through our industry committee and the connection to the provinces of this country. Why is it good for that issue but not for this one?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform my colleague that the motion he is talking about would in no way encroach upon provincial jurisdictions. This motion directly involved federal jurisdictions. The federal government is in a position to enforce it in order to get something done. We were not asking to bring down gas prices. Rather, we were asking the government to reinvest the money brought in by means of the motion passed. This motion had nothing to do with provincial jurisdictions. It came under the federal government's jurisdiction.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's enthusiasm in standing up for her constituents in Quebec. I, though, want to stand up with equal enthusiasm for my constituents of Hamilton Mountain but, frankly, seniors issues are issues right across the country.

I think the member would probably agree that seniors across the nation are far worse off now than they were 13 years ago. Access to health care and to home care have been diminished. We used to have a national housing strategy but we no longer have that. What about seniors' economic security through GIS, through indexing or the lack of indexing of OAS? People are suffering in our communities.

We in the rest of Canada do have something to learn from Quebec. I wonder if the member could perhaps speak to her colleagues on the government side about the real inequality we have with respect to CPP as opposed to QPP. When seniors in the rest of Canada delay their applications for the Canada pension plan, they have 11 months of retroactivity to recover their pension money. This is not the government's money. This is money that went into the pension plan from employers and employees. Under the QPP system the retroactive period is five years.

I think Canadians and Canadian seniors deserve--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time is up.

The hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, my hon. colleague is right in many respects. Indeed, the government does not respect the programs in which citizens and employers invest, such as the EI program.

It is the same thing. The previous government slashed the program and the current government will not increase benefits or implement POWA. Moreover, I would point out that seniors everywhere in Canada and Quebec are underprivileged. Nevertheless, once again, the government in power and the previous government are to blame, for cutting transfers to the provinces, for not recognizing provincial jurisdictions and for failing to work with the provinces in order to help them offer seniors adequate, responsible programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on the motion introduced by the NDP. This motion proposes to rectify decades of underfunding of programs for seniors and, in the same breath, proposes a set of actions to achieve that.

Like my colleague, I am always surprised, not to say astounded, to see how centralizing an approach the NDP takes. Despite everything we have said, for the many years the Bloc Québécois has sat in this House, the NDP members do not seem to grasp, or simply do not want to acknowledge, that the provinces and the federal government have separate jurisdictions.

In the vote on the motion they are introducing today, they will surely be surprised to see that the Bloc Québécois is not supporting it. We will in fact not support this motion, laudable as its intentions may be. The point is not that seniors’ issues do not interest us, quite the contrary; but this motion tramples on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, as my colleague who spoke before me demonstrated.

The interference in matters under our jurisdiction is so great and so flagrant that the Quebeckers who are watching us on television will be astounded. While we may live in an uncertain world, Quebeckers live with the certainty that the federal government does not meddle in its affairs, and once again, the NDP is encouraging interference and confusion.

We must remind our colleagues that seniors’ issues, specifically when it comes to health care, education and income security, are not the business of this House. In fact, as one of my colleagues put it so well last night, a number of aspects of the motion are very attractive, but unfortunately it has been introduced in the wrong legislature! Bizarrely, those aspects of seniors’ issues that do fall under federal jurisdiction are missing from the motion. What explanation is there for the fact that, for example, it has nothing to say about the guaranteed income supplement, or the older worker adjustment program for people who are the victims of mass layoffs? And yet these are two programs that do fall under federal jurisdiction. This is incomprehensible!

I think that I have said before in this House, I worked for 20 years as a social worker with the seniors’ office in the network of community and public services in Quebec before being elected as the member for the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I am going to use my speaking time to explain to my colleagues across the aisle, using some of the points in their motion, how Quebec provides services to its seniors. I hope that they will understand that Quebec and the provinces are in the best position to provide services to their seniors, and what they would be able to do if they had sufficient financial resources. It can never be said often enough: the money is in Ottawa and the needs are in Quebec and the provinces.

Let us take, for example, the aspect of the motion that proposes that a seniors’ advocate be created. The motion is so finely detailed that it even describes what this advocate’s job will be.

In Quebec, there is the Public Curator, whose primary responsibility is to protect people who are determined to be temporarily or permanently incapacitated. The Public Curator also steps in to protect vulnerable individuals against all forms of abuse: physical, psychological and financial. Here we have the first duplication of powers.

As my colleague mentioned, we also have the Conseil des aînés. This senior citizens' council advises the minister on planning, implementing and coordinating government policies, as well as programs and services designed to meet seniors' needs. It is important to understand that this council is also mandated to suggest that the minister set up specific programs to address elder abuse. The council even produces and distributes documentation and information about seniors and the services and benefits available to them.

In addition, every health administrative region in Quebec has its own seniors round table, with representation from various local and regional organizations that serve seniors. Most of the council members are themselves seniors, and they come from the public, community and private sectors. These round tables defend and take a stand on issues that relate to seniors and make recommendations to the council.

Each region of Quebec—there are 18 in all—has local community services centres, which we in Quebec call CLSCs. These are public bodies funded with Quebeckers' money. Each CLSC has local committees whose function is to screen seniors who are victims of abuse. Social workers support these seniors as they report their abusers or make the decision to do so.

These local committees, once again, are made up of representatives of various groups: the police, hospitals, public seniors' homes, volunteer bureaus, in fact, all the local organizations that are concerned about elder abuse.

I am proud to describe what is done for seniors in Quebec and to talk about the quality of the services and initiatives in Quebec. If you will allow me, I will continue in the hope that my colleagues opposite will grasp what I am saying and will learn more so that they understand that Quebec does not want duplication and new structures. Quebec wants the financial resources that are sitting in Ottawa, in order to maintain and develop its own services and its own structures for seniors.

Quebec passed legislation that requires all public health and social services centres in our public system to make available to any user who so desires a quality-control officer or what could be called, in the jargon, a complaints commissioner. This person reports directly to a board and handles all complaints on a confidential basis. I myself worked for three years in an extended care facility for seniors and can say that this is a very important position that enables residents, most of whom are seniors, to express their complaints or dissatisfaction and request the necessary changes.

In addition, there are all the Associations québécoises de défense des droits de personnes retraitées et préretraitées, what we call the AQDR. Each looks after the interests of seniors in its region in regard to any matter at all and before any body. As a matter of fact, in my riding the AQDR, Valleyfield section, celebrated its 25th anniversary last Sunday with 400 seniors who are strong and proud to be members of this association.

The Government of Quebec also invests large amounts in its community network. I think that it is a model of its kind throughout Canada. The Quebec government realized that the best way to serve the citizens is to get down to the grassroots level. There is also a lot of funding in Quebec for an array voluntary community organizations that deal with seniors. These include the volunteer centres which provide a variety of services offered by volunteers supervised by professionals, thus enabling seniors to remain in their homes as long as possible. I could point as well to meals on wheels, informal caregiver groups, a long list. In Quebec and surely in other provinces, there are a lot of initiatives to help older people or anyone having a hard time.

I cannot finish my speech without saying more specifically how disappointed I am not to see any mention in this motion of the income support program for older workers who lost their jobs as a result of massive layoffs. Everyone knows that this program is close to my heart. In my riding, workers who are 55 years of age or more are in despair because they see the Conservative government abandoning them and failing to establish a program that would enable them to live their richly deserved retirement years with some dignity and respect. They are workers who are 55, 59 or 60 years of age and are finishing their days in a precarious financial state that is completely unacceptable.

In view of the Government of Canada’s current financial condition, the Bloc Québécois, all the people in my riding and I myself fail to understand why it cannot take some simple, concrete action to finally establish the program we are asking for. I am getting to the connection with the NDP motion.

We would have been very pleased if this had been included because it is a federal jurisdiction and it is important for all the seniors in Quebec and Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important issue. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek.

I would like to commend the member for Hamilton Mountain, who has put forth this motion, for the hard work she has done in her constituency on this issue.

It is important to put some context into today's debate because it is not a motion that has just come out of thin air. The motion has actually had consultations with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Indeed, I introduced a motion in the House of Commons in the last session of Parliament on which the Liberals could have acted if they had wanted. It has been sitting on the books for a long time.

The member for Richmond talked about the fact that the Liberals had done so many things and gave us the sorry tale of blaming our party for their defeat and their problems. That is ironic because we did not even have enough votes necessary to prop them up, even if we wanted to. Second, Canadians were the ones who made that decision.

Interestingly, and the member obviously missed it, his former leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, unprecedentedly begged on national television for some time to continue his government. There was only a three week difference between the election and the time for which he begged Canadians, so it is a moot point.

It is important to note that the Liberal government could have acted on the motion at that time. It did not do so, which is fine. We are here today and we have to focus on what we can do at this point in time.

The motion is very important as it puts seniors in the forefront. That did not happen in the budget. We did not see significant progress on seniors issues. I have gone through the budget. There are a couple of specific points, but they do not put the importance of the issue of seniors to the forefront.

When we started to engage Canadians in terms of the seniors charter of rights, it was done through consultations and not only through public meetings. New Democrats had meetings all across this country with constituents of all political backgrounds. We received thousands of petitions, emails and correspondence. We engaged seniors groups and organizations, and the context of the motion comes from that dialogue with Canadians.

There are some suggestions about improvements to the motion. We, as New Democrats, are open to those and we are certainly willing to do so. However, the context of today's debate does not come from a decision made in a back room where something is thrown down on the table, it comes from the engagement of Canadians. It comes from talking with them and hearing their stories.

In Windsor West, when we had the national campaign to kick off the seniors charter, we engaged Canadians. We heard the stories of individuals whose incomes were affected. I heard the same stories from people in Vancouver and Winnipeg. For example, their disposable income is shrinking and contracting, based upon their rising costs. Whether it be issues over which we have little jurisdictional control or larger ones on which we have direct intervention, they expressed grave concern about the fact that all levels of government need to do some type of management and contribute more in terms of assisting seniors by presenting a policy because they are falling behind.

In Windsor West, for example, we heard everything about the energy crisis as an issue and the cost to people whose disposable income does not change based upon that. In Vancouver, for example, property evaluations were escalating so much that seniors were having to choose to leave their homes because they could not afford the property taxes. All those issues lead to the reasons why we have laid out a number of specific strategies to deal with this issue because it is on the minds of Canadians.

The Canadian Labour Congress polled Canadians about a year ago. The result was that 73% of seniors were concerned about their retirement and whether they were going to have enough income, and the effect on their health, wellness and livelihood. That is up 20% in one year. We know that on the public radar screen we have an aging population, and Canadians are concerned and they need to be engaged. That is what the motion does.

I am hoping that, because there was no type of examination of the issue in the budget, the Conservatives will support the motion. I am hoping, because the focus was so desperately needed in the last parliament, that the Liberals will support it. I hope the Bloc will think about it because it does provide for provincial programming and jurisdictional elements.

We are looking at strengthening, coordinating and giving seniors a voice. That is important to note because there is no overall coordinating voice.

We are looking at issues that we have identified as some of the highlights of this motion and they relate to: income security; secure, accessible and affordable housing; wellness; health care; and self-development and government services. All of those had particular points of interest.

When we heard from different people in the community, they had different types of experiences. Some were concerned, for example, that they had diabetes. They felt that they could not get the proper medical attention that was necessary or even testing. Some were only eligible for eye examinations once every two years when it should be done every year. These are things that cause problems later on in their lives if we cannot get to the front end of ensuring wellness. That is actually a cost saving to society.

It is the same for dental issues. The motion focuses as well on some of the dental problems. We heard from people across the country that they were concerned about the fact that they did not have proper dental and hygiene care. That affects not only seniors but also our health care system, as we end up treating people for more significant problems down the road that could have been helped much sooner.

In the discussions that we had with seniors these things were important for them because they also lost their participation in society and became more isolated when they did not have those proper services. In particular, for physiotherapy, people are on waiting lists for a number of different procedures and operations, and second to that there is a cost to access therapy.

We heard from people in the inner cities who were on waiting lists for a long period of time for knee replacements for example and others in the rural areas who were prescribed physiotherapy, but did not have transportation to get to and from rehabilitation. That subsequently affects their lifestyle and their contribution to society.

That is important because we know from the escalating costs that seniors are becoming more active in society in terms of employment. Some do so, not only because they want to contribute and make some money but others do so because their pensions are not enough. Therefore, we have people retiring from a main occupation and moving into another part time job or seeking other types of employment. People are working longer and harder than before just to get by and then their services are falling to the wayside. These are some of the elements that we feel are important.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the Centre for Seniors in my riding for the good work that it has done and is one of the reasons we proposed our strategies. The Centre for Seniors is an organization that is an advocacy body in many respects. It is a gathering place. It provides services such as evaluations, training, social programs, as well camaraderie.

The New Democratic Party identified that the government does not really have an independent individual minister for seniors. That is why we believe that we need a seniors advocate. We need someone who is going to act in an ombudsman-type position who will champion in the House seniors issues, looking at everything from our federal programs to cross-coordination.

We need to analyse those programs, whether it be income supplements, health care programs or services, and how they are actually affecting people on the ground. Are we being effective, are we being engaging, and are we actually leading to real progress? That is something that the advocate can do.

We know that many Canadians are not even tapping into the programs and services for which they are eligible. That is an absolute crime. It is a shame. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are entitled to supplement payments from their seniors pensions are not aware of this or they do not have the capability. Whether it be language skills or reading and writing skills, they are not tapping into these types of funds.

The government will hunt us down for taxes. It will make sure it crawls through any space to go after people to pay their taxes. However, when it comes to assisting seniors to tap into the supplement programs which are supposed to be there for them, there is no effort by the government to find those individuals who are in need. One hundred thousand seniors as a bare minimum for just one program is not acceptable.

The ombudsman, in an advocate position, could be a leveraging tool to get into those cases which will benefit all of us.

In conclusion, I note that this motion is tabled by the NDP, but at the same time it is important to recognize that this comes from cross-country consultation with Canadians and seniors, who are supporting this position and supporting this motion here today.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously all members of the House care for seniors. There are dozens of seniors' homes in my riding of Edmonton Centre, all of which I have visited more than once, and there are indeed many people there who do need some assistance.

I will point out, as has been pointed out previously, that we are moving toward the establishment of a national seniors council, which will be made up of seniors and representatives of seniors' organizations, to advise the government on the very issues that my hon. friend has talked about.

I asked a question earlier of a previous NDP speaker as to whether the NDP has costed the program or not. I meant to ask what that number was, because I received the response that yes, the NDP has costed it. I would like to ask the hon. member that question. Given the fact that those members have costed it, would he share with us their estimate of that number?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the costing is important. Not only is there an outlying cost that has to be funded, but there is also a return investment that we get from lowering other costs.

I will use the example of the dental hygiene in health care that we have proposed. The oral treatment that we are asking to move forward on has an eventual cost of around $600 million annually for dental and hygiene care. Over time, that amount will diminish as the hygiene of individuals improves. There also will be cost savings later on when there are fewer problems related to hygiene and oral care.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my NDP colleague's intervention on this interesting motion in support of Canadian seniors.

When the member spoke about some of the measures that were introduced in budget 2006, I thought of some of the initiatives that the government did bring forward with respect to doubling the pension income credit, an initiative that affects some 2.7 million pensioners and in fact will give them some additional bottom line. That is not to mention the reduction in the GST, which is going to get savings into the hands of the 30% or so of Canadians who do not even pay any income tax. Those savings, in addition to the transit pass measures, which I think will put another $220 million in additional dollars in the pockets of Canadians by the 2007 year-end, are all positive measures.

Notwithstanding the fact that the member's party did not support the budget, I wonder if the member would talk about how these measures in fact are tremendous benefits relative to what we have seen from past Liberal governments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that those initiatives are important. I support them individually. I do not disagree that those initiatives will be benefits for seniors, but they pale in comparison to other tax cut measures and the other priorities in the budget.

As well, the issue of subsidies has not been addressed. The oil and gas sector will receive a subsidy of about $1.5 billion from the budget. In fact, that sector will probably receive even more as some of the market budget levers are being changed as well.

There are some good things happening. Like every budget proposed in the House of Commons, this budget contains good things and bad things. If a member were to stand up here and say that a budget is 100% bad, there would be no credibility, because good things always come out of the budget process. Lobbying is done by ordinary Canadians as well as organizations and that leads to specific and different actions. These actions are happening and that is good. In the previous administration, we just saw policy announcements and those really do not affect people at all.

I hope the Conservative Party supports the motion. It would at least partially redress the gaping hole in that party's budget as it focuses most of the tax cuts on other issues and at the end of the day really has only a pittance for seniors. This motion is a start on that redress.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not only must older Canadians be seen as the creative, active and valued members of our society that they are, but we as parliamentarians must ensure that we are doing everything we can to make that happen.

I am pleased to rise in this chamber today to join with the efforts of my colleagues in the NDP, which have been ongoing for many years. Almost seven years ago the United Nations celebrated the international year of the older person. At that time, a former member of our caucus, Michelle Dockrill, then seniors and pensions critic for the NDP, began work on a seniors charter. That work has been followed up by the members for Windsor West and Hamilton Mountain. I wish to take a moment to congratulate my colleagues on their efforts, their passion and their dedication to the very important issues that face the seniors of our country.

This motion has two key but separate components. First, it would provide guarantees through a charter to enshrine certain economic, social and cultural rights for seniors. Second, it would create the position of a seniors advocate, who would act as an ombudsman for older persons on policies and programs.

As the member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, I am pleased to actively support the NDP seniors charter. In the short time that I have been in office, I have heard many concerns from seniors in my community, concerns that would be addressed by this charter.

Hamilton's Social Planning and Research Council's May 2005 report indicated that 24% of seniors in my community live in poverty. That is almost one in four seniors. That is not the worst news. This same report indicated that senior women over the age of 75 experience poverty at double the rate of men in the same age group. In my community of Hamilton, 36% of women over the age of 75 live in poverty. That is nothing less than shameful.

Our current income security system is a complex patchwork that does not cover all the holes. Hamilton is not alone. While the incomes of seniors in Canada have risen more than those of any other age group over the past 30 years, seniors still have, on average, lower incomes than people in most other age groups. Nationally, over 270,000 seniors, or almost 8%, live in poverty.

The time for action is now. Instead of a comprehensive plan like the one being presented here today, neither the Liberals, after 13 years in government, nor the Conservatives have put anything similar before the people of Canada. Instead of guaranteeing income security through protected pensions and indexed public income support for a reasonable state of economic welfare, the Conservatives campaigned on a commitment of no reduction to the three pillars of public income support, CPP, OAS and GIS. There was no increase and there was no indexing to inflation or the consumer price index--just no reduction. That is very short-sighted.

The Conservative promise is not worth much to the senior who is forced to go without food to pay the hydro bill or who cannot pay a telephone bill because the oil and home heating bills are so high. The Liberals, even after 13 years of government, were still campaigning in the last election on waiting for a report later this month before making a real promise or commitment on pharmacare or home care. For those seniors who are at risk by self-medicating or who are cutting pills in half or taking one dose instead of two daily as prescribed because they cannot afford the prescription, Liberal promises of pharmacare were cold comfort.

In my community of Hamilton, I have heard from many seniors who are injured workers. Many were forced into early retirement. Many live below the poverty line when they were used to much higher incomes. I have heard too many stories of the choices they have to make to go without food so they can pay for the medications that will allow them to get through the day.

Older Canadians have a right to income security, a right to accessible and affordable housing and a right to quality health care that includes primary, home, dental, palliative and geriatric care and pharmacare. The NDP is the only party to put forward a plan on how to achieve that. The NDP is also the only party talking about how to put forward plans for lifelong accessible and affordable recreation, education and training.

Lifelong learning opportunities is a very nice term that sometimes masks the problem many workers have in going back to school or retraining later in life when trying to secure employment after a layoff or downsizing in our changing economy. Making more loans available to our youth to become more indebted without addressing the rising costs of tuition for post-secondary education is not a solution to providing affordable and accessible education for our youth. More loans are also not a solution for retraining and education for many older persons, who must undertake this for the purpose of work retraining or other self-development later in life.

Many Canadians in their forties and fifties are forced to seek student loans to access education and training. This means that more and more people approaching retirement or in retirement are accumulating student debt. It is difficult enough to live on fixed incomes. It is even more difficult when one has an OSAP payment to make.

Yet what does the Conservative government make available to people who are seeking education and retraining opportunities to better themselves and contribute to our economy? More loans, but no tuition reduction.

Education is not the right of youth alone. Affordable education must be for Canadians of all ages. With this motion, the NDP seeks to enshrine seniors' rights to lifelong access to education and retraining as part of a larger effort on ensuring access to affordable education.

The second and equally important part of the NDP's seniors motion that we are discussing here today is the creation of a federal seniors advocate. There are many government services and programs that are targeted specifically to seniors. Although many provinces have a cabinet minister directly responsible for seniors, there is no federal equivalent. We cannot in good faith simply enact a charter of rights without ensuring that there are mechanisms available to enforce those rights.

In the case of the NDP's seniors charter, we are proposing a seniors advocate. Ensuring access to services and programs requires a coordinated effort. For example, if we look at income support programs, we see that several ministries are involved and that none of the programs are automatic. Even though the federal government has access to reliable, annual, updated information regarding people's addresses, ages and incomes, it does not do a great job of making sure people know the programs and services are available to them.

Although applying for income support programs is reasonable, it is not reasonable to allow individuals to fall through the cracks because we do not do a good enough job of letting people know when they are eligible.

In my community of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I am conducting information sessions on the disability tax credit to ensure that all people in my riding know about the tax credits that are available to them. The first of several forums planned will take place on June 24. These are very important, because the government, even though it knows very few people actually receive the tax credit, does not ensure that everybody who might be eligible receives the information on it.

Having an advocate for seniors, with oversight responsibilities assigned to a cabinet minister, would help coordinate federal programs directed at seniors. It would be an advocate for seniors who acts as an ombudsman, an advocate who reports annually to Parliament and examines policies and programs to ensure that there is one easy point of access for all seniors.

Although we do not have one, several other countries do. In fact, New Zealand created a minister of senior citizens in 2001. That office has many of the same reporting, monitoring and advocacy roles that today's motion suggests we adopt here in Canada.

During election campaigns, all politicians stand up and say how they are going to fight for seniors. Today in this House MPs from all parties have an opportunity to stand in the House and be counted. I hope all MPs in the House will remember their promises and support the NDP's seniors charter.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today.

The federal government recognizes that seniors are valued members of Canadian society. This is why Canada is working with the provinces and territories to ensure that our health and social programs and systems are in place to respond to an aging population. To this end, our government is committed to the renewal of publicly funded health care services as set out in the 2004 health accord. This government is committed to ensuring that a publicly funded health care system meets the needs of all Canadians, including seniors.

This agreement on a shared agenda for renewal is based on a deep and broad consensus that has emerged from an ongoing dialogue among governments, patients, health care providers and Canadians. It represents the convergence of efforts to ensure that Canadians have a high quality, accessible health care system based on their need, not their ability to pay.

The accord addresses Canadians' priorities for sustaining and renewing the health care system and builds on and supports work already under way across the country.

Health care renewal and sustainability of the system is about fundamental structural reforms and the funding to implement them. These innovations are more important than ever given the public debate on the Supreme Court of Canada's Chaoulli decision. This decision highlighted the need for all governments to follow through on the first ministers' health care renewal commitments.

First ministers recommitted in the 2004 accord to improve access to primary health care and expand health care services and improve pharmaceuticals management and access. First ministers also agreed to achieve meaningful reductions in wait times, beginning in five priority areas. I would like to add that it was this government that committed to a wait time guarantee to ensure that patients get the care they deserve, especially after over a decade of mismanagement.

Primary health care is of great importance in the renewal of Canada's health care system. Major national and provincial health studies have recognized primary health care as an integral part to achieving long term change and enhancing the sustainability of the health care system.

The health accord recommits first ministers to ensuring that they meet the objectives of 50% of Canadians, ensuring that by 2011 they have access to multi-disciplinary teams 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The accord builds on the commitment by accelerating efforts to set up multi-disciplinary teams, electronic health records and telehealth, all of which are key points to the sustainability of our health care system. The Conservative Party's health care guarantee will accelerate this process and enhance dramatically the health care of Canadians.

There is also a best practices network which will help bring forward reforms by encouraging the sharing of innovative practices and information barriers to progress and primary health care reform such as the scope of practice.

In addition to these initiatives, $800 million in the primary health care transition fund was established in 2000 to accelerate improvements. The Conservative Party commitment to the health care guarantee and the creation of national strategies in cancer, heart disease and mental health will help all of us deal with health care concerns in a better way.

Home care can help reduce wait times by freeing up hospital space for patients with urgent or complex needs. Canadians have long said they want to remain in their homes for as long as possible when they are sick, recovering from an illness or injury, and during the final stages of life. Research shows that in many instances home based care is less expensive than care in an institution. For these reasons, where it makes sense to do so in terms of health outcomes and cost effectiveness, Canadians should be able to obtain the services they need in the appropriate setting.

I am a very big advocate of home care. My personal experience is that after my accident there was a strong push to institutionalize me. At the age of 23 that was definitely not the direction in which I wanted to go. When people find themselves in a similar situation, either in the prime of their life or at the end of their life or anytime during their life, in most cases home care is less expensive. More important, it is better for the individual, for the family and for the community. We have to ensure that the resources are in place to allow this to happen. I am pleased to say that the government has done that.

In their accord, the first ministers agreed to provide first dollar coverage by 2006 for certain home care services based on assessed need. These include short term acute home care for two weeks, such as nursing and personal care, intravenous medications related to the discharge diagnosis, and case management; two week coverage for short term acute mental health and crisis response services; and end of life care for case management, nursing, palliative specific pharmaceuticals and personal care at the end of life. This means that no Canadian will have to pay out of pocket for these types of home care services.

The accord is a first step to a national approach for home care, ensuring that all Canadians have access to a common basket of home care services.

Prescription drugs are also a major issue. They can improve the outcomes when it comes to health care. Through advances in drug therapy, more and more Canadians are being treated at home close to their families and in the community.

Prescription drug expenditures are rising faster than any other component of the health care system. They cost more to the system than doctors' services. We need to deal with this issue. Part of the reason the Conservatives supported the 2004 agreement is that after 13 years of mismanagement, something needed to be done. Certainly the Conservatives will ensure that the appropriate action is taken.

Wait times continue to be the main concern of all Canadians. Reducing wait times and improving access is a key priority for this government. This is why the Conservative government brought forward the wait time guarantee. Under the previous government, wait times doubled. The Liberals cut $25 billion from the health care system in 1995. That caused the health care crisis which we are now experiencing. This is why this government is committed to ensuring that we have community based services to shorten wait times and reduce the demands on our health care system.

I am pleased that due to this government's actions, Canadians will finally see significant improvements in the way people in need are dealt with. We will ensure that anyone, regardless of ability to pay, will have access to high quality, sustainable health care within the confines of the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that health care is a huge issue for seniors right across this country. The focus on waiting lists was welcomed by seniors, but they want more than just the rhetoric of a commitment. They want the waiting lists go down. They want access to health care services when they need them.

What figures into that is in communities like mine on Hamilton Mountain, there is still a huge waiting list not just for surgeries, but actually for primary care physicians. There is a huge shortage of doctors in my community. Primary care physicians are needed or people cannot get the referrals for surgeons which the member just talked about.

Similarly with respect to home care, home care is not covered by the Canada Health Act. It ought to be. People should have access to home care. Not only does it allow seniors to live in their homes longer, it also means that acute care beds are freed up.

All of these things are integral to a holistic approach to health care. For the government to focus only on wait times for surgeries is not the solution. It is not what seniors are looking for. I wonder if the member could comment on what we are going to do to address in a meaningful way the shortage of doctors in our communities.