Debates of June 15th, 2006

Response by Minister of the Environment during Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am not sure that was a point of order, but I am sure all hon. members appreciate the clarification on all points.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the procedures of the House, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate the order in which he expects to call business tomorrow and for all of the days of next week. I would like to receive from him, if he could, an indication of what he intends with respect to Friday, June 23, whether the House will be meeting and working on that day. Also, which day next week will he formally designate as an opposition day?

I wonder if he could also explain, with respect to Saint John harbour, why the government promised $40 million and delivered $2 million.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to figure out why after 12 years in government the Liberals did nothing about Saint John harbour. There was not even a plan, according to the Minister of the Environment. Surely that is shocking.

With respect to the business of the House, we will continue with the NDP opposition motion today.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-5, public health; Bill C-12, the emergency management act; and time willing, Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections.

I can confirm that Monday will be the eighth and final supply day.

Tuesday we will begin debate on the report stage of Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

Other business will include Bill C-17, an act to amend the judge's act and certain other acts in relation to courts; and Bill C-3, bridges and tunnels.

I would like to confirm that it is the government's intention to refer Bill C-17 to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion--Seniors

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the House broke from the debate for question period, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas had the floor. The time allotted for his remarks had ended, but there are five minutes for questions or comments consequent on the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, which I listened to carefully. I believe he comes from British Columbia. I would like him to tell me whether in his province there is an ombudsman, a public trustee whose mandate is to protect the rights of seniors and other vulnerable persons.

What the NDP motion is proposing are measures that are provincial responsibilities. I would like the hon. member to give me his version of what goes on in his province. What structures and services are available in British Columbia to help and support seniors and to defend their rights?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in B.C. there is an ombudsperson's office but not exclusively with jurisdiction over seniors issues. Seniors in British Columbia have told us in the NDP that more resources are needed for advocacy work, that the kind of measures we are talking about in today's motion are needed.

Not every province has reached the exalted and inspired state that Quebec has for instance. There is still a real need to have an advocacy role in the areas where the federal government is involved in providing programs and services for seniors, where it is failing seniors in Canada. That is what the motion talks about.

I was in Esquimalt last weekend with some of my colleagues. One of the main issues that was raised in discussion with me and others was the need for advocacy. A lot of the advocacy that happens now is informal. It is a kind of peer counselling association, which is very important, where one senior helps another.

People in the city of Victoria and the greater Victoria region are trying to raise that up a notch to have paid advocates. Their role would be to work with seniors to make sure that they take advantage of the programming that is out there and to help them lobby for improvements to those services. That is another level which does not exist in British Columbia and which is very important.

They were enthused about the idea of a federal seniors advocate who would work on those kinds of programs. The seniors advocate would be part of the federal government structure and would always have his or her eye on seniors programming, the programs that exist, the programs that need to exist. The seniors advocate would work with members in the seniors community to make sure that took place.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is impressive in its scope and vision for creating a new reality for Canadian seniors.

In the northwest of British Columbia we see many seniors, particularly those on fixed incomes and low incomes struggling with the basic needs of day to day life. They are struggling with how to pay for medicine that they so desperately need, how to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and so on.

There have been many years of surplus budgets at the federal government level, yet we have seen the clawback of services and spending on the most vulnerable in our society. In this case we are talking about seniors.

In the case of a senior on a fixed income, I wonder if the hon. member could speculate on why it has taken so long to forcefully push this issue in front of the government of the day. Why has it taken so long? There is so much money available for wars in Afghanistan and any little pet project the Prime Minster can think of, but we have been unable to serve the seniors community in this country properly and address their most basic needs.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the billion dollar question. There is lots of money when it comes to tax cuts for wealthy people and for corporations in Canada, but there is nothing for program spending for the people who really need it. We have worked long and hard in this corner of the House to bring a balance to that kind of economic planning.

Instead of estimating the cost of programs, let us estimate the cost of not having these programs. We know the cost that existed in our society when we did not have medicare. Seniors in particular know that cost because most of them were around and remember the days when they had to worry about how they would pay for medical coverage, when they had to worry about whether or not they would receive medical treatment when they were ill, whether or not they could afford it. They know what that was like and what a difference that program made in the lives of all Canadians.

They know what a difference it made when Canadians got together to collectively work to solve those kinds of problems. Some of that impetus has been lost. The political will to seek those collective solutions has been lost. We have the political will in this corner and perhaps there is some of that will in some of the other corners of the House, but we need to get that back on the agenda and make sure that the important programs, like the ones we are talking about in this initiative today, such as home care, pharmacare and dental care are implemented. We need to make sure that our medicare system is working.

Those are important priorities that we need to work on together as Canadians to make sure that everyone is able to live a full and high quality life here in Canada.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to rise and speak to this motion, and I want to say at the outset that I do support the motion.

It gives a strategic, coordinated approach to this multi-faceted area dealing with seniors in this country. We can call it what we want, but I would like to see it condensed into a national seniors strategy. I congratulate the member opposite for bringing this motion to the House.

This is a very important issue for all Canadians. As has been stated before in this House, there are some very fundamental demographic shifts going on in this country. In the year 2001, one in eight Canadians were aged 65 or over. In the year 2026, that will reach one in five Canadians.

Seniors are not a homogeneous group, and if anyone tries to interpret that in this debate or suggest that, I believe they do so in error. As we speak, somewhere in Canada there are 72 year old men or women teeing off at a golf course. Those individuals have the benefit of a public or private pension plan, own their own home and have their health. The issues that concern them are probably issues of lower taxes. They want somebody to stop the slide of the stock market and they want the government to leave them alone.

At the same time, there are other 72-year-old people living in one of our inner cities who have health issues, security issues, housing issues and other issues, and are looking to the government for help. That is something that governments at all levels have to respond to, but again the point I am making is that we are not dealing with a homogeneous group.

There are seniors living in very challenging circumstances and that is the cohort within the larger group where we do have to focus our attention and we do have to come forward with a very comprehensive and inclusive strategy.

I should point out that there has been a lot done over the last number of years. There are still some major gaps, as members will hear today from myself and from other speakers, in the policies and programs that are offered to seniors, but a lot has been done.

In the year 1981, 20.8% of seniors would be classified as living in low income circumstances. By the year 2001, that figure was reduced to 7.3% of the senior population, which I consider to be a dramatic decrease in this number; however, if one is part of the 7.3% it really does not help all that much.

There have been some very progressive programs adopted by the Liberal government over the last number of years, of which I am very proud. I am very proud to have been part of it. It does not quite go all the way, but it certainly has made some tremendous strides in this whole issue, and I am now dealing with the whole area of economic security.

The framework policy is of course the guaranteed income supplement. Members will recall we used to have the old age pension. We still have it but it has been changed dramatically. The cornerstone of our economic security for seniors now is the guaranteed income supplement, and that was increased in the 2005 budget by $2.4 billion over two years, which would be an increase of approximately $400 per year for single seniors and approximately $700 per year for couples.

I should point out that other provinces, particularly Ontario and Saskatchewan, offer supplemental benefits over and above what is offered by the federal guaranteed income supplement program.

There is a basic policy of economic security for seniors living in Canada. Is it enough? Probably not. Has there been a dramatic improvement over what was available 10 years ago? The answer is yes. This may be an error in the motion, but this particular program is tied to inflation. I believe it is increased twice or four times a year based upon the rise in the consumer price index.

Another program that I am very proud of that has been enhanced over the years is the Canada pension plan, our public pension plan. Most plans in other countries are underfunded and have all sorts of problems. Our plan is and will be for the next 40 years actuarially sound. I am very proud of this plan. It is part of the economic security offered to seniors. However, there are a lot of seniors who do not qualify for benefits under the Canada pension plan.

The increase in the amount that can be contributed to an RRSP and the increase in the year that withdrawals have to be made from 69 years old to 71 years old have been beneficial steps in the right direction. The announcement in the last budget by the finance minister of increasing the deduction from $1,000 to $2,000 is also a step in the right direction.

I hope that most of the legislative changes that the previous government adopted dealing with pension protection will help, but again we are into some jurisdictional issues here. The whole area of private pensions in Canada will require more work by the present government and by provincial governments right across Canada.

We heard of the situation which occurred in Nackawic, New Brunswick, where people who had worked for 25, 30 and 35 years basically lost their pensions. It is my position that this should not happen in a country like Canada. If it does happen, then we as legislators and people in the provincial assemblies who are supposed to protect these workers are just not doing their jobs.

Another matter that I have some concern about is the funding of our private pension plans. I do not believe the law is vigorous enough. We are going to see problems in the years to come. A lot of private pension plans right across Canada are underfunded and I know the primary obligation is on the owner to bring these plans up to a proper level.

This is a multi-faceted motion. It is an omnibus issue and touches on the lives of a lot of seniors. It talks about housing. It is my position that this is a basic right of seniors. The federal government provides some funding for affordable housing programs and for seniors housing programs. The primary jurisdiction is in the provinces.

The federal government has an obligation and a duty to work very closely with its provincial counterparts so that seniors have the housing they deserve. The benchmark that is being used in most of the provinces, and I accept this, is 30% of a person's gross income. No person should pay more than 30% of their gross income toward their accommodation needs and accommodation should be available to all persons.

The motion talks about wellness, health promotion and preventive measures. I agree that there is a role for the federal government, but again it is a provincial issue. This is something that has to be included in a national seniors agenda with a clearly defined focus and strategy.

Again, this talks about the preventive measures, it talks about drug costs, it talks about drug accessibility, and it talks about public education. It speaks of the services that are available to seniors. This is why I am agreeing with this particular motion.

We talked about primary health care. In Canada we have a universally funded, publicly accessible health care program.

The motion talks about some expansions to this program that should be made available to seniors, and I certainly agree with the gist of the motion. It talks about dental care, product care, home care, and other forms of health care that are particular to seniors, and I agree. That is why the way it is worded in the motion is quite correct.

Another area that calls for additional resources and changes in policy is this whole area of self-development.

One of the programs which I was so proud to see brought back, and I was disappointed of course when it was cancelled, is the new horizons program. This is a program that is available to seniors groups right across the country. It is not a large amount of money, but it provides seniors groups with certain amounts of funding so that they can get established, get organized, come together for recreation, education, or for whatever needs and wants.

Again, we are not talking a lot of money. However, this was a program that was cancelled back in the mid-90s and was implemented about two years ago now, and the budget is, I believe, $50 million a year. I have experience with a lot of these applicants who have applied for this program. It is a good program and I am proud to be associated with the re-establishment of this particular program.

When I am speaking of this issue, I do want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the National Advisory Council on Aging. It has certainly done a lot of great work over the years on this whole issue. Any of the papers, documents and positions that it has come forward with have pushed the envelope on this particular issue and it has been very helpful over the years.

One thing that did disappoint me in the last organization of the last government was the dropping of a separate minister responsible for seniors. In the last government we did have a secretary of state for seniors and it was his job, it was a he in the last government, to bring together different departments and to bring a seniors' focus to the whole government agenda. I believe that this is needed, and I believe that is exactly what this motion speaks to.

This motion calls for a national seniors agenda, and again we are not talking about a homogenous group but a collaborative group. Every department has to be brought together, not only from the federal government but from the provincial government and also the municipal governments that offer other services, such as public transit, recreational services and so on.

So again, I was disappointed, when the new government was formed in February, that we did not have anyone out there speaking for seniors. Of course it was a major disappointment. In actual fact, I did hear members of that party, prior to the election, speak in this House that it would be part of the government, that there would be a minister responsible for seniors.

Another issue that the motion does not speak to but is something that, at some point in time, this assembly will have to have a debate on, and that is this whole issue of seniors in the workforce

It is more than just seniors wanting to work. When we look at the demographics and the labour shortages developing in certain areas and in certain industries in the country, I believe our economy will need a certain number of seniors to stay in the workforce, maybe not on a full time basis but at least on a part time basis. I have a number of recommendations that I would think the government ought to consider in the future.

The first deals with clawback. Right now certain seniors may want to go back to work, but not on a full time basis. Right now these seniors are receiving the guaranteed income supplement or some other similar program. If they get a part time job and make $3,000 or $4,000, that whole amount is clawed back from them. Unfortunately, this is a very severe disincentive for a senior to do anything, and in most cases they will not.

The government should look at this in the next budget. I do not think we are talking about a lot of money. I believe we should look at some program or policy that would remove that disincentive for seniors who want to stay in the workforce in some minor or part time basis.

Another area is mandatory retirement. I believe we are moving beyond that as a society. I think mandatory retirement has been rejected in different provinces. Whatever the programs and policies are, we should abandon the concept all together. Again, this is an issue of policy. Mandatory retirement goes beyond seniors and it gets into our economy generally.

Another important area, which the resolution does deal with, albeit indirectly, is the amount of volunteer work that is done by our seniors. Right now approximately 18% of the population of our seniors volunteer regularly. That is slightly in excess of the average for the Canadian population.

I should point out to members that the people who do volunteer, they volunteer a lot more than the average Canadian. In actual fact, the statistics indicate that a senior volunteers on average of 269 hours per year. This is quite a bit more than the average Canadian that does volunteer.

This ties into the new horizons program. It ties into some of the volunteer programs of the federal government. However, it has to be tied in with the whole area of a comprehensive seniors strategy that acknowledges the volunteerism of our seniors across the country.

The area of elder abuse requires a lot more public education, although there is more education on that now than there was at this time last year. This is much more prevalent than people think. It is physical and it is financial. A lot of times it involves family members. Many times elder abuse is not reported. A lot more elder abuse occurs than what the statistics suggest. In most instances it is sloughed under the table. It is very much out there in the public. I believe the federal and provincial governments have an obligation to come forward with a very comprehensive public education strategy on this whole issue.

I support the motion and congratulate the member for bringing the motion forward. As far as I am concerned, it wraps around a lot of issues that involve federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. It cries out for what I would call a national seniors strategy. This is a strategy that will require more focused attention from the government. When we boil it all down, a lot of times it talks about how and not what.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Many times across the country we honour seniors with seniors days, seniors activities, seniors proclamations and so on. What we really owe seniors is a great deal more than they are currently receiving.

The seniors charter guarantees the supports that will help to provide seniors with health and well-being. It promotes wellness through promotion and preventative care to keep them active and participating in our community.

The guaranteed access to primary care and home care, aside from the moral correctness of doing this, will do nothing but cost the country, the government, the budget less money. It is much less expensive to support and care for someone at home than it is in a multi-level care facility or in hospital, which is often where seniors end up when they do not have that support at home. In addition, they are far more comfortable, more relaxed and more likely to keep participating if they are in their own home. Therefore, there is an economic argument for doing this, not only the moral argument for the comfort of seniors.

This also guarantees access to geriatric care, people who need perhaps a more complex level of care, and palliative care. Many people, but certainly seniors, are choosing to die in a hospice bed or often now in their own home. They need the support to do that, surrounded by their families and the people who love them.

The seniors charter establishes a national prescription drug plan for seniors. I think of a woman who I talked to not very long ago. She retired about three years ago. She now has two part time jobs because she has to pay for her prescription drugs. There are times when she makes a decision to only take one pill per day, instead of the four that she is supposed to take. Even with her part time jobs, she has a problem paying for her medications. That is not acceptable. Those are exactly the people who, if they do not take their full prescription, end up back in hospital.

Other than the fact that it is the right thing to do, there is an economic argument to keep people out of hospital.

The seniors charter would provide a dental plan for seniors. Seniors often suffer oral side effects from a number of chronic illnesses. Something that can keep them healthy is good nutrition and they can have that, if they are able eat comfortably. Providing preventive dental care is not only the right thing to do, but it will be a cost saving.

We have a proud history in the NDP of innovation and investing in and providing for Canadians. For many seniors over 65, their coverage has been reduced or eliminated so they have to go without.

The Canada Health Act mandates funding for drugs in hospital. Drugs prescribed outside hospital may not be covered by provincial plans. Some of those pharmacare costs can be catastrophic. Many seniors are forced to choose between their health and their pocket book, between eating and taking their medication. I do not think anyone wants to see seniors having to make those kinds of choices.

Many provinces have pharmacare plans, but only for some seniors. Eligibility varies from province to province. Seniors in Halifax deserve the same standard and coverage as seniors in Surrey. It is time for a national standard. It is time for a national dental plan.

The province of Alberta has a seniors dental plan so does the city of Toronto. They are two different examples of effective and affordable dental care for seniors.

Investing in Canadian seniors is the right thing to do. If we invest in seniors, they will invest in us. They are out there in their communities, still participating, volunteering in almost every activity that goes on in our cities.

I am proud that the NDP has launched another Canadian innovation. I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her work on behalf of Canadian seniors. I hope that all members of the House will support this important motion.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's presentation. I have enormous admiration for her, and I know how committed she is to the most vulnerable people in our society.

However, given that the federal government passed a law in 1991 to put an end to child poverty, yet last year we discovered that there were a million poor children in Canada, and there is even more child poverty today; given that the federal government benefited from the guaranteed income supplement by not giving it to seniors who needed that money, as she so rightly pointed out, and that it thereby saved $3.2 billion at the expense of vulnerable, needy seniors; given that the federal government achieved a surplus of over $4 billion with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation but did not reinvest this money in social housing by transferring the money to the provinces, as it was supposed to do; given that the federal government is unable to take care of the first nations as it should, let alone first nations seniors, women and children; given that the federal government is unable to take care of the soldiers and veterans for whom it is responsible, how does she think the federal government can take care of seniors when they do not even come within its jurisdiction, but are a provincial responsibility?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to how it will be done, I hope it does not depend on the history we have seen. We have to eliminate what I would call family poverty. There is no such thing as child poverty where children live in poverty and their parents do not. Many promises have been made but not kept.

However, we are putting this forward with the expectation that the government will recognize its responsibility for seniors. Perhaps in doing that, it will look at the other promises that have been made. People look forward to the receipt of some of supports to help them raise their children, to provide their children with books or clothes for school or housing. During the time I was in provincial government, I believe Quebec and British Columbia were the only provinces providing any money for off-market housing, and that is a disgrace.

I recognize the history that has come before from promises. If the motion passes, and I expect it to, I expect the government to live up to this promise. Not only do poor children and their families have voices. I do not know about Quebec, but in the province of British Columbia seniors have very loud voices. Many organized groups of seniors will watch this carefully to ensure the government is accountable for this.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have time for a brief question and a brief comment and response.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the NDP speaks about supporting seniors with a charter that is covering such a wide scope of areas outside of federal jurisdiction, would the member agree that for these goals to be realized, there would have to be very extensive collaboration with the provinces? Therefore, it probably could not be realized without extensive collaboration with the provinces. I would like the member to tell me how the party would do that.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having heard your recommendation that there is only time for a quick answer, my understanding is that there has been an agreement for an amendment to this motion, or at least some discussion about an agreed upon amendment, that this will be done in close consultation with the provinces. The member is correct. There are many places where we cross jurisdictions in the lives of almost anybody we work with, so I take the member's point. My understanding is that this has been agreed to.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate for the House and for all of Canada. I am pleased to be part of a caucus that has been forging ahead with an idea that is now beginning to gain resonance across the country.

The idea of a charter for seniors is fundamental to our notion of a civil society, because in fact it recognizes that we are indebted to those people who built this country and sacrificed so much in growing this nation as well as in fighting world wars and building a future for other generations. We owe it to those people to ensure that they live the rest of their lives in decent conditions with respect and with great admiration.

I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone in the House can say we have done a very good job of that. There are too many seniors in our midst who live in abject poverty. There are too many seniors in our midst who live with abuse, with financial, physical, sexual, mental and emotional abuse. There are too many seniors in our midst who are struggling just to preserve some sense of dignity, because it gets awfully difficult to make ends meet when the governments of the day keep pulling and cutting and offloading responsibilities for areas that are fundamentally important to seniors.

Therefore, this debate is very timely. It is meant to be a constructive proposition to the House and to Canadians about what we can do as parliamentarians, as elected representatives, to make a difference in the lives of seniors.

So often seniors tune into this place on CPAC or whatever and see and hear a lot of words. There is a lot of good rhetoric here today about how we are going to care for seniors, but even as this debate goes on it gets shuffled off into jurisdictional issues. We get immobilized worrying about whose area we are treading on and who will do the job.

What seniors are saying to us today is “think outside the box”. We cannot fix the problems of seniors and ensure they live out their lives with decency and dignity unless we actually get a little more creative and a little more willing to spend a bit of money, which will go a long way to making a big difference.

I want to give an example. In my own constituency, seniors are struggling to ensure that there is better transportation, because if there is better transportation, seniors can get out. They can socialize. They can go to a restaurant. They can go to a fitness program. They can go to meet a friend. They can get exercise. They can ensure good emotional health and well-being because they have that kind of freedom.

What do we offer today in that context? Unless we live in the centre of a city that has rapid transit and we are right at the doorstep for that transit, there is no alternative. There are no options. There is no way to be able to just freely live our lives without feeling dependent upon someone else.

In Winnipeg, groups like the Seven Oaks Seniors' Links, the Point Douglas Seniors Coalition and others are trying to put together proposals that cross jurisdictional boundaries, and they are calling on us to do something about it. They ask why they cannot get a little money from the federal government to rent a city bus to go around a neighbourhood and pick up seniors on a regular basis so they can go off and do what they like to do and feel good about themselves.

What answer do they get? That it is not federal jurisdiction and that the federal government cannot possibly give money for a bus service in downtown Winnipeg or the north end of Winnipeg. Why not? It is health and well-being. It is part of ensuring that seniors stay healthy longer. We all know about the examples, yet we cannot seem to break out of these boxes and do that.

If there is one thing we do today, we should adopt this proposal, this charter. First, it is to say that seniors' rights are fundamental and that is why we want them entrenched in a charter, and second, it is to say “let us start applying this charter”, so that it is not just a bunch of words and gobbledygook. Let us apply it to the day to day lives of seniors.

The transportation issue seems to me to be such a logical one to apply this to, but we can go on and talk about health care generally, as my colleague from Surrey North has done, and talk about the need for seniors to access, on a universal basis, dental care and pharmaceuticals. We have let down our seniors on that front so much that it is hard to actually come to terms with it.

Seniors thought about those promises over the last 13 years under the Liberals and then they looked to the Conservatives under the last budget for some attempt to live up to those promises, whether they were specific promises to establish a national pharmacare program, as the Liberals promised for about four elections in a row, or whether it is the Conservative rhetoric of saying, “We respect our seniors. We want to make sure they do not live in destitution and we will do everything we can”.

Where is the meat? Where is the action? Where is the program?

Why do seniors today have to worry about filling a prescription or putting food on the table? Why do seniors today have to turn down the heat in the dead of winter in Winnipeg because they have to save money to stretch their dollars?

Why, in this day and age, do we not at least recognize that we have an obligation as a society, as a government, to ensure that all seniors have access to basic medical services? Beyond hospital insurance and beyond visits to doctors, we must look at dental care, pharmaceutical coverage or pharmacare, and home care.

These are all things that have been promised over the years and were never acted upon. They are affordable, they are important, and they will make a difference to the way in which our seniors are able to live out their last years. Frankly, I cannot think of anything more important than that.

I cannot think of anything more meaningful than for this Parliament to say that we will make this our undertaking, we will conquer this field and we will do what seniors want us to do. That is to ensure that they can live with some sense of economic security: we will provide a regular increase of OAS and GIS, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, as the cost of living increases; we will ensure that we act cooperatively with all jurisdictions and forge new programs when it comes to things like transportation and recreation; and we will provide the basics when it comes to health and well-being.

It is often said that a measure of any society is determined by how we treat the most vulnerable among us. When it comes to seniors in our society today, I think that over the years we have created a situation of making them some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society.

Especially when it comes to older women, our record is deplorable. In fact, we have some of the worst statistics anywhere in the world for poverty among older women. We also have a terrible record of actually preventing this kind of society where people are sandwiched between caring for their kids and caring for their parents without any supports. We have done little to acknowledge the role of family, communities and governments in working together to create the very best for our seniors.

This motion is simply an attempt to forge a new path for our seniors and to make a difference in the lives of our citizens. At the same time, all of us in this House celebrate what seniors are doing on their own on a volunteer basis, without very much help from government. I just have to go through the list in my constituency. Manitoba is a very important example, of course, because we probably have the highest per capita population of seniors anywhere in the country, with more than 157,000 residents aged 65 years or older. That is about 14%. That is expected to increase to 33% by 2001, so we have a particularly critical situation in Manitoba.

We are working hard to prepare for that day with a provincial government that is committed to working with seniors. It has a seniors secretariat and an excellent home care program, but it is still facing many difficulties because it is impossible for the government to do this on its own.

I want to conclude by referencing the good work of organizations such as Point Douglas Seniors Coalition, Seven Oaks Senior's Links, Keewatin/Inkster Neighbourhood Resource Council, Gwen Secter Creative Living Centre, Main Street Age & Opportunity Senior Centre, North Centennial Seniors, Aboriginal Seniors Resource Centre, Filipino Seniors Group, Punjabi Seniors Group, Manitoba Society of Seniors, and many more, as well as people like Al Cerilli, Ron Mills, Archie Orlikow and the late Murray Smith, who have worked so hard for dignity and security for everyone among us. I commend them.

I urge the House to support this motion.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House appreciate the ideals that have been articulated by the member.

I am looking at a copy of the NDP platform from the last election. The recommendations in that platform include making investments to create as many as 10,000 additional long care spaces per year for four years. The NDP would support $1 billion annually to improve home care so that seniors and disabled persons could remain independent. The NDP would move toward a national prescription drug plan, starting with assistance for people facing high prescription drug costs.

I am looking at what was in the Conservative budget and the things that are allocated for seniors. The Conservatives are going to dismantle the secretary of state for seniors, which was created by the former Liberal government. The budget will be hardest on seniors in the lowest income bracket. In fact, the 2006 budget contains only one single measure directed toward seniors and that is a tax exemption that favours higher income seniors.

Does the member and her party not feel that seniors have been let down with that record of lack of accomplishment on behalf of seniors? Why did the NDP not get a better deal from the government? The NDP turned on the Liberal Party that was going to put forward measures and yet the Conservative government in the unholy alliance with the NDP, got nothing for seniors. It got squat for seniors. How does the member feel about that against those high ideals that she has articulated?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the seniors spoke quite loudly and clearly in the last election about how they felt the previous Liberal government had responded to their needs. They defeated the Liberals because the Liberal government had not addressed their fundamental issues. In fact, the Liberals made life a lot harder for seniors as a result of cutbacks to health care, education, housing and just about every social policy area that would make a difference to seniors.

I am not for one minute suggesting that the Conservatives are any better. I would say in fact that the Conservatives are beginning to look an awful lot like the Liberals. They ignore the seniors and disregard this important legacy that our elders have left us. I say a pox on both of their houses. They have let down the seniors of this nation and have disregarded their fundamental concerns and needs.

The issue that was most disappointing to the NDP leading up to the last election was the failure of the Liberal government to recognize the importance of standing up for medicare. Seniors remember what life was like before medicare. They said to the Liberals over and over again, “You let us down. We will not stand by while you dismantle health care, while you let it be privatized and move us toward a two tier system. We know how important it is”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the member, is the NDP not the party that wanted to tax the inheritance of these poor seniors who have saved for all of their lives and wanted something to give to their children? Was it not that party that wanted an inheritance tax?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the idea was considered and was withdrawn publicly. It was absolutely acknowledged that it was the wrong approach at this time and we would not pursue that at all.

Today we have an example of how the Conservatives have failed to protect seniors from losing their life savings. There are more examples of the famous income trust story, which continues to be a problem. Many companies are abusing their privileges and failing to fully account to Canadians. Pensioners are losing their savings and the government is standing by idly without taking necessary protections.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what passion. I know the place my hon. colleague hails from. I have visited Manitoba. I have visited Winnipeg. I know that many cooperatives are doing excellent work there. It is very imaginative.

In Quebec, we have home support cooperatives that take care of household tasks for the elderly. In addition, the government offers a 25% tax credit that enables them to get an immediate tax credit on what they pay for household services.

Does she not think that if more money were transferred to the provinces, her province could do the same and offer more services to the elderly? Would that not be better than trying to arrange for the federal government to supervise these services, which are under the jurisdiction—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

The member is right. We do not want the federal government to do everything listed in our charter.

We want the federal government to live up to its commitments with respect to transfers to provinces.

That is true. It is important. The problem is reduced federal funding for health, housing and so on. This is the first problem we must address. After that, there are many possibilities for cooperation between different levels of government to try to resolve the issues facing the elderly.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss government measures for the protection of seniors. I fully support the sentiment of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that older Canadians are creative, active and valued members of our society. In the actions that the government has taken, we have demonstrated our commitment to ensure that they have the respect and dignity they deserve in their senior years. We are moving on a number of fronts to address their concerns.

It is well known that Canada's population is aging at an unprecedented rate. In fact the number of seniors in Canada is expected to double in the decades to come. We are therefore now putting in place measures to ensure that policies, programs and services meet the evolving needs of today's seniors and those of tomorrow.

Today I would like to focus primarily on financial security. The hon. member has raised the very important issue of income security for older Canadians. Canada's retirement income system is recognized around the world as one of the best. Today more than four million seniors receive old age security benefits and three million receive Canada pension plan retirement pensions. As well, the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance, and the allowance for the survivor provide an additional income to 1.6 million low income seniors.

This government will ensure that old age security and the Canada pension plan remain fundamental guarantees of income security for seniors in their retirement years.

The Canada pension plan and old age security will be offered to seniors now and in the future. As the chief actuary said, Canada is one of those rare countries that can count on a secure public pension plan. He added that the 9.9% contribution rate will be enough to sustain the Canada pension plan for at least the next 75 years.

He also said that the old age security program remains viable and affordable for the Government of Canada. We can be particularly pleased with the fact that in his report he predicts less dependence on support benefits by low-income persons because of the higher incomes of seniors to come. Canadians can be assured that this financial support is here to stay.

Many people probably do not know that funding the Canada pension plan and old age security is one of the major expenses of the Government of Canada.

In 2004-05, some $51.6 billion was paid out as direct income support to seniors, which is $23.8 billion for the Canada pension plan and $27.8 billion for old age security.

For the most part, thanks to these programs the senior population living in poverty has gone from 21% in 1980 to 6.8% in 2004, which is the lowest level of all time.

Yet, despite the success in reducing poverty among seniors, there is always more to do. To assist them the government has the guaranteed income supplement which provides some 1.5 million low and modest income seniors with financial support. Payments from the GIS total more than $6 billion annually.

This government is committed to helping Canada's seniors who built this country and the future seniors who are now building on this foundation.

In budget 2006 we have taken positive steps to fulfill our promise that seniors will be able to keep more of their hard-earned savings by doubling the maximum pension income amount that is eligible for a federal tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per year in 2006. This measure will benefit nearly 2.7 million taxpayers with pension incomes. It will also benefit low and modest income seniors as some 85,000 pensioners will no longer have to pay income tax and will be removed from the tax rolls.

Furthermore, as part of our commitment to the continued viability of Canada's retirement income system, the federal government will discuss with the provinces and territories the possibility of allocating part of future federal surpluses to the Canada pension plan and to the Québec pension plan. This is one of our ways of offering an acceptable level of economic well-being, as the hon. member said so well.

In order to ensure there is accountability for how seniors are treated and to ensure seniors have a voice in government policy decisions, our government will appoint a national seniors council. This council will be made up of seniors and representatives of seniors organizations to advise the minister responsible for seniors on significant issues affecting them.

This government is sensitive to the needs of senior Canadians. The budget addresses financial issues. We have a secure pension system and, through our seniors council, we will be creating a forum for seniors' views to be heard. These are the areas I have focused on but I would like to mention that the government's commitment in health care, affordable housing, public transit and in safety and security also address the particular needs and concerns of seniors throughout the country.

In addition, through Human Resources and Social Development, Canada's seniors secretariat, we work with the provinces, territories and many other partners to promote the well-being of seniors across the country. Through our host of programs, seniors can share their creativity and wealth of talent in helping to build vibrant communities and a stronger Canada.

While I respect the hon. member's good intention in the proposal raised today, I can assure the House that in this month of June, celebrated as Seniors Month in many parts of the country, and in all the other 11 months Canadians can be confident that this government will protect the interests of seniors.