House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
moved that Bill C-36, as amended, be concurred in.
Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place today to speak to Bill C-36. I should let you and members of this place know that I am pinch-hitting for my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who is storm stayed in the bowels of Pearson airport with many of our other colleagues.
In any event, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill. I say it is important because Canadians, particularly seniors, look to our excellent public pension plan for the income security they need and deserve in their retirement years.
It is important for Canada's new government as well. This legislation is part of the commitments we made to Canadians during the last election.
Delivering on that commitment is a way in which we reinforce the trust Canadians have in their government. This is an important change. Canadians are happy to have a government that is following up on what it promised by getting it done.
This bill is also important because it strengthens the public's faith in the government's capacity to serve as a good steward of the Canada pension plan and the old age security program.
Canada's population is aging at an unprecedented rate. The number of seniors is expected to double in the next few decades. It has been urgent for some time that governments develop the policies, programs and services that will meet the evolving needs of seniors, both for today and in the future.
Our government, through Bill C-36, is doing just that. We introduced a number of important amendments to the old age security and the Canada pension plan. At this stage of the bill, it is important to acknowledge the progress we have made.
While this government and the Prime Minister have shown tremendous leadership in delivering what we promised, I am pleased to acknowledge the cooperation of all parties in providing input on the bill before us today. I want to thank each member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for their excellent work and collaboration in advancing this bill. While there were some proposals that did not make it into the bill, we are all better informed by the contributions of the members for Chambly—Borduas and Hamilton Mountain.
Ultimately, the bill we have before us benefits Canadian seniors and long term contributors applying for CPP disability. I think they will pleased with the collegial work that took place on their behalf.
I was watching the news on Tuesday night, and in fact, right after the committee's consideration of Bill C-36. There was a segment on the latest Statistics Canada report entitled “A Portrait of Seniors in Canada”. The news story was very positive. Seniors in Canada today are healthier. They are living longer. They are much more active. Many are exercising three or four times a week. And seniors well into their seventies want to keep working.
Seniors have a powerful voice, and this government is listening. What resonates with me is their strong belief in remaining able and active members of Canadian society. I was so proud when at the end of the news report a man said, “I have my old age pension and I have my Canada pension plan...what more do I need?”
We as parliamentarians should not rest on our laurels. We have a responsibility to ensure our pension programs remain stable, sustainable and generous. I believe, and I think members of this House would agree, that we are accomplishing exactly that through this bill.
This bill comes from Canadians. They were the ones who, through their letters, their emails, their meetings with us and their organizations, made a point of saying that they needed these changes. They are changes that will make a difference in their lives, changes that will alleviate some of their frustration and changes that recognize their unique circumstances. They are changes that make sense to all members of Canadian society and treat them all fairly while ensuring that we maintain their trust in their public pensions by remaining fiscally responsible, transparent, and accountable, accountable to them, the seniors of this country.
Our public pension system is something we can rightly take pride in. It plays a vital role in ensuring the economic well-being of millions of Canadians. Public pensions deliver over $54 billion to Canadian seniors each year.
We are proud of the fact that our pension system has been an important part in dramatically reducing the level of poverty among seniors. In 1980, almost 21% of seniors lived on low incomes. Today that number has dropped to less than 6%. Like our health care system, our public pension programs are part of the Canadian way of life. They are defining features that we all cherish.
This bill will improve the delivery of pension benefits for seniors and enhance eligibility for Canadian pension plan disability benefits for long term contributors to the plan. Frankly, it will improve access.
My biggest sense of pride as a parliamentarian, and I am sure this sentiment is shared by all parliamentarians, comes from participating in a democratic process whose end result makes a meaningful difference in the lives of Canadians. These changes go a long way to doing just that.
In particular, the proposed lifetime application process for the guaranteed income supplement means that seniors will never have to reapply for the benefit each time their income increases or decreases. This will greatly ease the frustration of certain seniors and will ensure that those who file their income taxes will receive their benefit in a timely manner.
When a person applies for his or her old age security pension or Canada pension plan, that person is establishing a relationship with us that will last for the rest of his or her life. Expanding the group of third persons who can assist seniors with their pension benefits means that extended family members will be able to play a more active role and assist their loved ones whose first language is not English or French or who may have trouble reading or writing. I think seniors will very much welcome this change.
However, easing eligibility rules for long term Canada pension plan contributors will assist thousands of individuals to qualify for disability benefits in future years. This means that applicants with a long history of attachment to the labour force who become severely disabled can count on CPP disability to be there when they need support. I am particularly pleased that this important change is a result of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration.
Clearly, we always need to need to do more. I want to thank my colleagues and the witnesses who appeared before committee, who offered excellent suggestions on ways in which to improve our outreach activities and who acknowledged that legislative changes only go so far. There is clearly a responsibility, aside from our legislation, to get the word out to explain our pension programs and to work closely alongside community groups.
Seniors are valued members of our society. They are the reason we enjoy our country as we know it today. After their lifetime of hard work, we want to ensure that seniors can continue to have a good quality of life without having to constantly worry about their financial security. They deserve our utmost respect and consideration. We have an obligation to ensure that public pensions respect their needs.
Ultimately, I think this bill goes a long way in effecting the kinds of changes that seniors need and have asked for. I am grateful to all members for their support in moving forward on this bill expeditiously.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for outlining Bill C-36. However, he did touch on the issue of Canada pension plan disability. I wonder if he shares the same frustration that we have had as members of Parliament when constituents come to us looking for help with their CPP disability.
Virtually everybody who applies for CPP disability gets turned down on the initial adjudication, no matter what the merits of their case would be. It is only on appeal, and usually on appeal with the help of their member of Parliament, that we ever break through this barrier, this complete wall that has been put up in terms of access to CPP.
I do not say this as a criticism for the current government. This has been the case for a decade or more. Somebody, somewhere within Canada pension plan disability, sent a memo around to the adjudicators saying to deny every claim and that if applicants want to come back and appeal, maybe they will consider the merits of it then. I defy anyone to show me a single Canada pension plan disability claim that has ever been granted on initial application. It does not exist.
I would like to know what specifically the government could do about this or what it even may be doing in Bill C-36. If there is some progress to be announced in association with the eligibility for CPP disability within Bill C-36, I would like to hear about it.
Also, briefly, would he not agree that at this point in regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board it is time for beneficiary representation on that board?
An 11-person board now controls investment worth $140 billion on behalf of Canadians and we have no representation on the board. It is made up of patronage appointments, largely, people who have no particular experience with investment banking. In fact, one of those 11 people is the Liberal that I beat in the 1997 election. His soft landing was to get put on this new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. He was a history teacher.
I wonder if there is not some interest in putting a labour representative, a beneficiary representative, somebody to represent the Canadian public, on this all important investment board that is investing our money.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre is storm stayed in Ottawa with the rest of us until we try to make it out tonight.
My friend and colleague raises two important points. One is about the level of frustration that many seniors feel when they apply for CPP benefits. Most seniors with whom I have spoken have gone through the same frustration levels of applying, being denied, appealing and finally getting their benefits.
Something we, as a government, have been trying to achieve since we were elected is to streamline government services. Quite frankly, we are a government that believes in leaner, meaner, more efficient governments. I wish we could this overnight but we cannot. However, I think over time we will be able to streamline some of the processes of government and ease the frustrations and access to benefits that most seniors richly deserve. We will be working hard on that.
I would point out to my friend and colleague from Winnipeg Centre that in our latest cabinet shuffle we announced that there would be a minister responsible for seniors. The government House leader in the Senate has now been appointed the minister responsible for seniors. I know she is taking an active role in the files to benefit seniors on every level. This will be one of the areas that she will be investigating. My commitment to my friend is that I will be speaking with the minister responsible to see if we can giddy-up the process and streamline it as quickly as possible.
The other point my friend makes concerns the investment board itself and the patronage appointments that have been predominant on that board and other boards within our country over the past decade or two. I do not believe that is something that we should ignore.
As my friend knows, having worked with me on the legislative committee on Bill C-2, the accountability act, appointments to all boards and commissions must be made on merit. We felt very strongly about that when we developed the context of Bill C-2, the accountability act. I know it is a file that my friend is very familiar with because he played an integral role in getting many components, including the merit based component of boards and commissions and the appointment of a commissioner to oversee these appointments, into the bill itself.
I can assure my friend and colleague that we will be ensuring in future as we go forward, once various aspects of Bill C-2 have received royal assent and come into force, that appointments for all boards and commissions will be based on a go forward basis on competency and merit and not on patronage.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I know our seniors are an integral part of our communities. Could the member please comment on what he and the committee feel are the strongest points in this bill to help seniors live better lives?
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, the thing all Canadians need to realize is that the bill was a result of consultation with seniors. Seniors themselves were the ones who encouraged us and members of the committee to enact the changes that we see before us in Bill C-36.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, not all of their proposals are contained in this bill but a majority of them are. The primary benefit is to streamline the benefits that seniors will receive. It has been for too long a very convoluted and complicated process.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre earlier mentioned the frustrations that many seniors feel and experience when applying for benefits. The primary purpose of the bill is to streamline the process and the ability for seniors to receive those benefits they richly deserve.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments regarding patronage and our mutual interest in putting an end to patronage but how does he explain the fact that we do not have a public appointments commission in place and up and running at this point in time after the good work we all did on the Federal Accountability Act which was given royal assent on December 12?
We have now learned, from the budgets that were just circulated, that the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat has been up and running since April 21 of last year with an executive director, salaries, a budget, administration officers and a physical infrastructure. However, it has been doing everything but vetting patronage appointments. In fact, officials have been running off to Europe. They have only written one report. With a budget of $2 million, the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat has only produced one report. It actually gave advice to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to not use merit as the appointment consideration for the IRB but to appoint whoever the government wanted. The leadership of the IRB was so offended that they tendered their resignation.
If we are concerned about the Public Appointments Commission and appointing based on merit, how does he explain that we have no commissioner and no board of commissioners but we do have the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat burning up public money and doing nothing but generating one nuisance report that has caused us all embarrassment?
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, let us go back to a brief period in history to ensure all Canadians are aware of what the government tried to do initially. It tried to establish a director of appointments. We had put forward the name of an extremely qualified individual by the name of Gwyn Morgan. He is the executive who most Canadian businesses have looked to as the leader in terms of managerial experience, fairness and competency. He was lauded from coast to coast to coast by editorial boards as probably being the finest possible appointment to this position.
What happened? It went to committee and members of the opposition, including members of the NDP, who my colleague represents, turfed him. What was the reason? It was nothing more than political partisanship, gamesmanship. They denied Canadians the right to have one of the most qualified individuals in the country head up a commission to make appointments to boards and commissions based on merit and competency. It was that member and his party, as well as other members of the opposition, who turfed Mr. Morgan. They said that they did not want him.
How can the member stand in this place and accuse us of not bringing forward changes, which we both want to see, when in fact it was his own party, among others, who stopped the appointment process from going forward, stopped the commission and the commissioner who we wanted to appoint from doing the job that we wanted on behalf of all Canadians?
I have great respect for my colleague but this, quite frankly, is the height of hypocrisy to stand in this place and complain about a function that could have been established by now if it were not for the actions of his party and other opposition parties.
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Speaker, it seems unfortunate this morning that we came here with great intent to speak to Bill C-36, with the primary purpose of improving the lives of pensioners, those Canadians who have been unfortunate to receive or be a victim of disabilities and yet the parliamentary secretary introduces into this debate discussion on political appointments.
He seems to think that the great purists are on his side of the House but I am sure if Canadians were to review the appointments that his party has made, even the reference to his recent person, there certainly are political affiliations with most of those appointments.
However, today we are talking about Bill C-36. We know that every day, workers contribute to a healthy public sector and to private sector success. What they expect in return from our governments and within society is that their efforts will be respected and rewarded, both now and in later life.
In 2021, Canadian seniors over the age of 65 will constitute approximately 18% of our population. That compares to the year 2000 when seniors were only about 12.5% of the population of Canada. We do have a serious problem with demographics and, hopefully, as our country grows, we will see more new Canadians, larger Canadian families and the fact that we can maintain the demographics that are needed for a good society.
Today the federal government is addressing key issues affecting older workers and tomorrow's seniors. The income security of future retirees must be protected by good, sound public pension plans. I am proud to say that to address the evolving needs of Canada's seniors, the Liberal government made significant investments to ensure this over the last number of years. In fact, in 1997 the government restructured the Canada pension plan to meet the increased demands of an aging population to ensure its future sustainability and to stabilize contribution rates. Experts were called in and they determined that changes were needed to make the Canada pension plan sustainable for at least the next 75 years.
Those reforms were carried out by our government at the time and they made Canada one of only three countries in the world that offered a public pension plan that was sound and would be available into the far future.
As a government, we put our wallet, our money, the finances of this country, into this plan. We invested more than $28.5 billion into old age supplements and guaranteed income supplements on a yearly basis. We pledged to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors by some $36 per month for single seniors and $58 per month for couples. This was a promised $2.7 billion investment that directly benefited some 1.6 million Canadian seniors.
As a government, we also committed more than $2 billion annually in direct tax credits, such as the old age credit and the pension income credit. As Liberals, we also created a new employment insurance benefit, the compassionate care program, which allows family members to take time off work to provide care for seriously ill loved ones without suffering sudden income or job losses.
Also, it is probably interesting to note that in terms of our EI legislation, the member for Sydney—Victoria has a private member's bill that would enable those who become sick or are off work for long periods of time because of sickness, to draw EI benefits for more than the 15 weeks allowed at present.
As well, under the new horizons program, we offered funding for community projects to reach out to valuable seniors and to keep seniors active in their communities.
As a Liberal government, our commitment to seniors could not be clearer. We felt that seniors were a very important part of our group and that they must be paid the proper respects for the efforts that they make and have made on behalf of all Canadians.
Income security is just that, security for seniors. I join today to make every effort to ensure that all eligible Canadians receive their benefits in a timely and efficient manner.
As a party and as a member of Parliament, I am very pleased to support Bill C-36 and its provisions for simplifying access and a better delivery of benefits to seniors. Working Canadians need government action to ensure that every citizen has the right to retire with dignity, comfort and enjoyment.
Today's seniors deserve the best care we can give to them with unqualified financial security. Our party has always worked in that regard. We strongly support Bill C-36. Hopefully, we can proceed with the legislation and have it made the law of our country.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, so I am surprised that nobody has asked the other members who have been talking about Bill C-36 any questions. It will give some of our seniors a better future while others, who are not included in this bill, will face a worse one.
You know how much I care for our seniors in both Quebec and Canada because my family, my father is from Saskatchewan. I therefore have a very close connection to people living in the rest of Canada outside of Quebec. In my opinion, all seniors who have contributed to making Canada and Quebec what they are today should be given due consideration and be enabled to experience the end of life with the dignity they deserve in return for all they have given us in the past.
For a long time now, we have been asking the government to improve access to the guaranteed income supplement. For a long time, we have been demanding that the government make it easier for seniors to top up their revenue with the supplement. Previously, people could not get the guaranteed income supplement unless they made a formal request every year. Many people just could not collect it.
The committee that studied this issue in 2001 found that more than 380,000 people in Canada were not exercising their right to ask for the guaranteed income supplement because they were illiterate, or unable to see well enough to read the forms, which were difficult to understand. They may not have had access to resources to help them understand their rights, or they were simply speakers of other languages who did not understand their rights with respect to the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security program.
Bill C-36 will correct some of the problems facing our seniors. However, it does not correct all of them. We would have liked to have had the government and the Liberal Party on our side, in order to be able to correct some serious inadequacies. Some amendments were even made to the bill, to the effect that, now, some Canadians and Quebeckers who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement no longer are.
Yet, these are people who are Canadian citizens, people who contributed to our society, people who came here believing they would find justice and fairness, in many cases, unlike their experiences in their country of origin.
Today, we realize that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party did not want to admit that the amendments would restrict access to the guaranteed income supplement for Canadian citizens who are sponsored by someone else.
I find this quite deplorable, since we are talking about the most underprivileged people of all. Simply because an individual is sponsored by someone else does not always mean that that individual has better living conditions. Often, people are sponsored by individuals who, in good faith, wanted to bring them here to give them a better life. We are now seeing that, over the years, many jobs have been lost due to the ineffectiveness of the governments in place. They have failed to act in files such as the textile and manufacturing sectors. Furthermore, it has often been those Canadian citizens who are from somewhere else, who were born elsewhere, who have suffered those job losses.
Despite their best intentions, these people cannot always meet the needs of the relatives they brought here in order to give them a better life. I find the situation deplorable because these people contribute every day and pay taxes like everyone else. If they suddenly cannot meet their families' needs, it is not because they are not trying.
It is because our government was not smart enough and did not take the necessary steps to ensure that the manufacturing sector and the textile sector could provide decent jobs for these people over the long term.
This bill seeks to increase the number of third parties who can receive confidential information.
The government and the Liberal Party have refused to support the Bloc's amendment, which would not allow an increase in the number of third parties with access to confidential information. The law already provides for an authorized representative. Now, the bill refers to “any other individual authorized”.
I worked with seniors for many years. Many times, I saw children, siblings or neighbours of seniors cruelly abuse this right. They blackmailed the senior into signing documents that would give them access to information. Not only were they able to obtain relevant information, but they could also access bank documents and so on.
I do not understand why the government wants to expand access to seniors' confidential information to include any authorized individual.
Despite everything, this bill is sufficiently beneficial that we support it. However, we will have to be very vigilant and make sure that, in future, we have the opportunity to amend these clauses that seem slightly abusive to us.
Vulnerable seniors have no recourse available to them. They have no voice. We here, in Parliament, are their voice. We are the only ones who can help them get what they are entitled to. We should not abdicate that responsibility. It is a responsibility we must accept respectfully and vigorously.
If we do not, your mother, my mother and the parents and relatives of everyone here in this House will suffer and be deprived, because as a government, we did not do our best for them.
We have been fighting for a long time for seniors who have been mistreated and unable to receive the guaranteed income supplement. This bill is designed to further limit seniors' chances of obtaining retroactive guaranteed income supplement benefits.
Last year, on the eve of the election, the government voted by a majority for full retroactivity to be granted to older persons who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, I no longer sense this desire for fairness, I no longer sense this desire for justice from the members of the government. This surprises me greatly because the position of the Liberal Party was very clear on this not so long ago. However, we no longer see this desire for fairness.
I hope that we can discuss this issue further and that the people who were swindled out of this money, some $3 billion, can receive this money. Some $13 billion has just been invested in weaponry and $3 billion and change in airplanes. Furthermore, it wants to invest a few billion dollars in procuring jeeps.
Do those who provided us with the life we have today not deserve to have some money spent on them? Do these people not deserve some of the money we have in such abundance? There are surpluses every year. Annually, the government ends up with staggering surpluses, which it applies to the debt.
Of course some of this money can go toward the debt, but it is essential that we recognize the importance of the older persons who came before us, who allowed us to be here today, who, because of their actions and their courage, are the reason we are here today.
I do not see that in many of my colleagues in the government or in the Liberal Party, and that disappoints me tremendously. I would hope that this changes over the coming year. I am just one person, but all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois feel the same way I do, that we have to render justice to our seniors, to those who are isolated, alone and have no voice. We have to render justice to all those who came before us. We have to ensure they get justice. I can guarantee that most hon. members in the government and in the Liberal Party would sleep a lot better at night if we could render justice to these people.
When the committee conducted its study, it discovered a number of very disturbing things as far as older persons are concerned, a number of things that were more than disturbing because some seniors were living in total denial. Today, a very high number of older persons choose to die than simply survive or just get by.
More and more seniors are committing suicide, and this is unacceptable in a society like ours. It is unacceptable in a society as rich as the one we live in. It is awful to think that some seniors believe that suicide is better than living, that there is nothing left worth living for. I am ashamed to see that we do not care more than that, that we do not make an effort to give our seniors what they deserve. This bothers me and makes me very uneasy. We have comfortable lives, we cannot deny that. How many of our seniors can live comfortably?
In Laval, where I am from, there are 40,000 seniors, and 38% of those 65 and up are over the age of 75. This segment of society is the worst off, because these people do not usually receive the Quebec pension plan, do not receive any pension, do not receive anything. This category of people is increasing exponentially. In my riding of Laval alone, 12,000 people are over 75. There are more than 12,000 people between the ages of 75 and 90, even 100. One woman even recently celebrated her 104th birthday.
Quite often, these people may have retired 20 or 30 years ago. At the time, they thought they would live until the age of 70 or 75, because back then that was the life expectancy. So, they thought that if they lived until 70 or 75, they would be OK with what little money they had.
Now, they have reached the age of 90 or 95, and they have been without an income for 20 years. They thought they would die 20 years ago, but they are still around and they have very little income. Those with some capital can earn 1%, 2% or 3% in interest. That is not nearly enough for a decent living.
The cost of rent, food and drugs has increased. These people must visit the doctor more often and, since they no longer drive, they must do so by taking a taxi. This means that their related costs, their daily costs are very high, yet, a number of these people do not get the guaranteed income supplement and only get a pittance from the old age security program.
That is not how I want to grow old. That is not how I want my life to end. That is not how I want my mother to go.
I hope that everything we said about our elderly will be taken into consideration. I hope that people will think about this issue.
Yes, I do want Bill C-36 to be passed, because the part of the bill where it says that the guaranteed income supplement will automatically be renewed after the first claim is important. Many people did not know that they had to present a new claim every year. At least, they will get that. We have been asking for this for a long time, and I am pleased that, at last, it is included in the legislation.
The government could have gone further and be more generous. It has the means to do so. It chose not to. Still, the Bloc Québécois will continue to lead the fight, so that those who are entitled to it get full retroactivity. We will continue to lead the fight, so that the elderly are treated in a fair, responsible and respectful manner by this government.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I share many of the concerns raised by my colleague from Laval. I would like to ask her views on one detail, though.
Many of us have just gone through RRSP season. Many Canadians invest some of their hard-earned moneys in one of the few tax breaks that is allowed to us. However, many of us specify, in purchasing RRSPs, that we want them invested in an ethical way. We do not want our RRSPs invested in things in which we ourselves do not believe. Some do not want their investments in tobacco. Some do not want their investments made in military expenditures. There is any number of ethical screens we can apply to our RRSP. Statistically, we do not have to accept a lower rate of return to have an ethical investment plan. We can in fact enjoy a good rate of return and still apply ethical screens that reflect our values.
The Canada pension plan investment fund is specifically barred from taking into consideration any ethical screening whatsoever. Its mandate is strictly to get the highest rate of return at all costs, even if it means investing in a plant in the third world that uses child labour or tobacco farming, to which the Government of Canada is opposed. The government is trying to get everybody to quit smoking, yet money is being invested in tobacco.
Does she agree with me that we should mature as a society and apply the same type of ethical screening of our investments for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as many Canadians do to their own investment financial portfolio?
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, as a society, because of everything happening in the world today, we must consider very carefully how we invest our money.
Through my RRSPs I have invested in ethical funds, green funds, responsible funds. That is a personal responsibility.
However, I am not surprised by the actions of this government, which is currently led by the Conservatives. First of all, this government does not believe in the virtues of ethics, responsible funds, ethical funds or in sustainable development.
I understand completely why those who manage pension funds do not consider avenues that could be very rewarding and that could also create employment. It could also allow a large portion of the population to be more involved in taking up the challenges awaiting our society as we enter the era of climate chaos, in light of greenhouse gas emissions and everything else. We must do something.
I am not an economist. I do not know a great deal about these matters, particularly funds. I always ask my advisor at the credit union to help me because I do not know anything about it. Quite often, after she has finished her explanation, I am no further ahead.
I hope that the people who sit on these boards will have the wisdom to debate this point. It is a very important point and I thank my colleague for having raised it.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague. Once again, she has shown just how much she cares for society's most vulnerable members.
I would like to revisit the issue of seniors who almost never received the guaranteed income supplement even though they were entitled to it. In some cases, they were entitled to the full amount. My colleague was not in this House when our colleague who has since left us, Mr. Gagnon, began his crusade to identify seniors who had not received the guaranteed income supplement they were entitled to.
In my previous life as an accountant, my regular clients sent me their parents' or their old aunts' tax returns, and I noticed that those people were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Lots of seniors were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but they never asked for it. And the government never pointed it out to the people who sent in their tax returns. Even though it knew that these people should have been receiving the guaranteed income supplement, the government never gave it to them.
I had the opportunity to hold a meeting in my riding. Nearly 400 people—either seniors or people caring for seniors—attended. We did the math, and in some cases, we found that people would have been entitled to the supplement from the time it was created up until about four years ago. This would have been a lot of money for these people, as much as $90,000 in today's dollars. The government took away these people's rights.
Do you know what this means to seniors who are only collecting old age pension but who should be getting the guaranteed income supplement? It means isolation and a life of poverty. They cannot go out because they cannot afford to. They live shut in, especially if they do not have any family. This is an injustice.
Despite the $13 billion surplus, the Liberal and Conservative governments have not agreed to give these people back everything they sacrificed to directly finance the government. The $13 billion was used to pay off some of the debt. The real debt we owe is to these seniors who were cheated of their guaranteed income supplement.
I would like to ask my colleague why the Conservative government is doing this. Perhaps they are just following the example set by the Liberal Party when it was in power. Why do these people not want to pay the debt they owe our seniors?
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is the million-dollar question. I do not know why this is the situation. I would like to answer this question confidently, but I cannot answer it since I do not understand.
However, in many cases, it may be someone in their family, it may be one of their friends, it may be one of their neighbours, it may be someone who lives nearby. There is no doubt that they know these people would fully benefit from retroactivity.
I already said that in my work I have done checks in seniors' residences. There were no pets in these apartments, but in their cupboards were boxes of cat food. These seniors had no choice but to pay for their medication and eat cat food. This is unacceptable.
I do not understand why the government refuses to give seniors what they have earned. I do not understand. This is beyond comprehension. It must not have any understanding of poverty, or human dignity. I hope that one day it will have an epiphany, that it will see the light and understand that we owe seniors complete respect and dignity. I hope we will give them the money they deserve.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I share the outrage of my colleague from Laval. I appreciate the concern she brings here and the passion with which she portrays it.
If a person owed money to Revenue Canada, Revenue Canada would hound that person to the ends of the earth to get every nickel of that money going back three, four, five, seven years. Yet when the inverse is true and the Government of Canada owes this tiny pittance of money, the guaranteed income supplement, to a senior citizen, it will only pay 11 months in retroactivity. That is some magic figure it has pulled out of the air. After 11 months Canadians are cut off, even if for 20 years they have been shortchanged the money that should be rightfully coming to them. For some reason the government has pulled this convenient figure of 11 months out of the air. It is such a glaring contradiction that it makes my blood boil when I think about it.
I do not understand the logic or the reasoning, other than pure miserly, cheap bitterness on the part of the government that it would deny this money that is rightfully owed to seniors as the guaranteed income supplement. The reasoning the government used--
Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
Order. I interrupt the hon. member as the time has actually expired. I will give a few moments to the hon. member for Laval for a response.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, once again I thank my colleague. I realize that he is as outraged as I am.
In my opinion, we are dealing with the Grinch. Everyone is familiar with the Christmas story of the Grinch. Everyone knows how miserly he is. That is what is happening here. The government does not want, under any circumstance or for any reason, to give these individuals the money they are owed.
Once again, I hope that all colleagues in this House will see the light and that no one in their family will have to suffer because of the government's lack of conscience.
That is truly my hope because it is terrible to see what is happening to disadvantaged and isolated seniors.