Marcel Gagnon

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an excellent opportunity to speak about something close to my heart, something that has been talked about a lot in the past year. All the members of the Bloc Quebecois also feel strongly about this issue, as do a good number of other members in this House. The issue is the status of seniors.

I want to talk about the living conditions of senior citizens, who are among the most disadvantaged in our society. When I talk about disadvantaged seniors, I am not necessarily talking about all senior citizens. I agree that most seniors probably have the means and the health they need to take care of themselves. However, I am speaking of those who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and who have not received it for a number of years.

About a year ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, discovered that some 270,000 Canadians, including 68,000 Quebeckers, had been denied the guaranteed income supplement. We must remember that the guaranteed income supplement is given to seniors who have pretty much nothing to live on but their old age pension. It is an amount that is added so that people who do not have another source of income, or who have very little in the way of other income, can live a bit more decently.

For example, a single person whose income is below $12,600 is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. For a couple, the income figure is around $16,400; if their income, not counting the old age pension, is below that level, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.

It turned out that 270,000 people in that category across Canada, including 68,000 in Quebec, were deprived of this bare minimum, just because they could not be found. People who cannot be found are seldom rich people. Rich people are usually found. The tax man manages to find them and get their money, you can be sure of that. However, when the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Human Resources Development owe money to the most disadvantaged, strangely enough, they often cannot find them. Those who cannot be found are often the most vulnerable.

People who are vulnerable because of their age, old age, are not responsible for their situation. Over the weekend I met a very well-known gentleman of our region. He is 82 years old and recently suffered a stroke that left him all but disabled. With only 20% vision, he can no longer read nor write. As a man of the Church, he has people around who can help him. Yet, he told me, “I have been thinking about this issue of yours. Without all these people around me, I would be extremely vulnerable; I would not be able to even assert my rights”.

And these are the people, those who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, who were forgotten, deliberately forgotten by the system. The more I discuss this issue, the more I tour Quebec—I have held 30 meetings across Quebec to meet with these people, the press and those concerned about this issue—the more I realize that people are shocked. They have been forgotten.

There is $3 billion in the public coffers that belongs to these people. I will not keep my lips sealed, I will repeat it, because it makes no sense. It is unacceptable, especially in such circumstances.

This tour has yielded results. Now, in Quebec, at least 20,000 of the 68,000 individuals that we were trying to reach, have been contacted. This means that 30% of the people that I was looking for have been contacted and, today, they are getting the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled. However, the retroactive period is 11 months.

If a person owes money to the government, what is the retroactive period? It is at least five years. And if the person is deemed to be partly responsible, the retroactive application is full and includes penalties and interests.

In this case, because the most vulnerable persons were not responsible for this situation, the government applied an 11 month retroactive period once these people were located.

What is even more shocking is what happens when these people try to protect their rights. André Lecorre initiated a class action suit on behalf of all those people whose rights had been violated. However, the government is not challenging the substance of the issue, but its form. The government pleads its case before the court to which we have referred it, but it is never the right court. We are now before the federal court. The government will once again argue that this is not the right court and will say that we have to go before an administrative tribunal.

The result of all this is that it will take seven or eight years before the seniors whose rights were violated get what they are entitled to. But how many of them will be left in seven or eight years? The government is hoping that these people will no longer be around. It continues to violate the rights of these people and to rob them. This is a disgrace. It does not make sense.

I would like the support of the House—I know that my party supports me—and the support of all those responsible for the most vulnerable members of our society. I am asking for the government to show some honour.

A class action suit has been filed. If the government takes the position that this money is not owed, it must at least plead the case on its merits. If it owes no more than eleven months, then fine, these people will not be left waiting and hoping.They will just know that their rights were ignored.

It has to stop making the case for form's sake and wasting time. It does not have the right to waste time at the expense of people whose days are numbered. Whether it likes it or not, these people are not in the bloom of youth but in their twilight years. It has no right to waste time here.

The very day the judge told André Lecorre that he was talking to the wrong court, he had lost his wife at 6 a.m.

Obviously, the government owes a little less money now that she has passed away. How many other people like her have died and will never get their due?

This is a good opportunity to talk about it again, in hopes that we will be able to convince the government that this situation is shameful in a country such as ours.

Three billion dollars has been allocated to paying off government debt. It is not true that these people are responsible for this debt. This $3 billion must be given to the people that are located and to whom we owe money.

We need to stop being stingy and stop wasting time. If we really want to find out whether or not we owe this money, we need to base the argument on the substance of the issue. Let us find out now, instead of dragging the case from one court to another, so that all of the plaintiffs are dead by the time it comes time to pay up. This is unacceptable. I will use every opportunity I can get, in the House and outside, to argue this matter.

You may be surprised, Mr. Speaker. I have contacts in the field you used to work in. You must know that there is money in sports. Someone you know very well said to me, “I am prepared to carry a sign and demonstrate over an issue like this because what we are doing to our seniors is not right”.

We are violating the rights of those who helped build our society. Most of them are mothers who had families and never had an opportunity to work outside the home. They are the ones who have been wronged the most.

My colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, was with me during a meeting in Sherbrooke where we met a family whose mother was deprived of $90,000 over her lifetime. She lived with the barest minimum, yet, when she died, the government owed her $90,000. To me this is unacceptable.

I thank the House for allowing me to raise this one more time.

[Agriculture, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that April 1 was no longer the deadline, as he had suggested previously.

Will the minister confirm that this statement applies to the entire agricultural policy framework, which includes the net income stabilization account program, the new risk management program and the agriculture income disaster assistance program?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Churchill who gave a very thoughtful speech that touched on, I felt, some extremely important points.

I would like to ask her some questions, because she spoke about poverty. She also talked about those seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement due to a lack of information.

I want to ask if she thinks that it is right—and the employment insurance fund is another example—for the government to boast about reducing the national debt on the backs of the workers, the unemployed and the elderly. I know that several billion dollars belong to the workers and not to the state. It did not contribute one dime to this fund. This money belongs to the workers. Some $3 billion belongs to the seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

Does she think it is right for this money to be used to pay down the national debt, when these people did not incur the federal debt. I would like to get her reaction to this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, we really hear it all in this House. I just heard the previous speaker say that the government had invested in health. He failed to mention that the provinces suffered cuts in health care. The government eventually gave part of the money back, but not all of it. This is money that belongs to the provinces, and health is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Moreover, he said they had made sure that the money would be properly spent. A system had been put in place to ensure accountability in how the provinces spend their health care dollars.

I think he forgot to say that the federal government is probably the last one who should offer advice on how to spend money properly.

I would like to hear him briefly on the sponsorship scandal, where money was paid for services that were never provided. I would also like to hear him on gun control, and the 11% or 12% increase over the initial budget.

Is this the example the federal government is setting the provinces. It wants to control the provinces and show them how to spend in health. I would like him to comment on that because I find that not only insulting but also completely wrong.

I think—and I take Quebec as an illustration—that we could give the federal government a few examples of proper spending. One good way, and the hon. member could address that as well in his comments, would be to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction and stop this systematic duplication. I would like him to comment on these issues.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary had some friendly criticism for the previous speaker, pointing out that he had forgotten to talk about various things in this budget. For example, he forgot to mention the alleged 7% reduction of the debt.

However, I could add that the hon. member forgot to say in his speech where the money to pay down the national debt came from. He forgot to say that some $40 billion came from the employment insurance fund. This money did not belong to the government but to the workers, including those from the forestry industry in our region, which is grappling with a system where the mills are closing due to the government's neglect and the agreement with the Americans.

He also forgot to say that, in terms of the money taken to pay down the debt, over $3 billion belongs to seniors, who are among the poorest members of our society and who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement that the government deprived them of for eight years. In fact, $3 billion of the amount used to pay down the national debt did not come from the wealthiest members of our society but from the poorest; they are owed this money.

I would like the member who had the floor to answer my question. Could he elaborate, for example, on these two subjects?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Fredericton, who just spoke. He spoke about the budget. It is interesting. He said that for him, the budget addressed health, the Kyoto protocol, defence and poverty.

I have a question for him, because this budget contains one incredible oversight, in my opinion. Last year, I took part in a tour of Quebec to discuss, among other things, the guaranteed income supplement. Thousands of poor and vulnerable seniors were forgotten by this government in connection with the guaranteed income supplement.

The scope of the problem was such that the tour and the work of the Bloc Quebecois and others resulted in finding more than 20,000 seniors in Quebec alone who are now receiving the guaranteed income supplement, an annual supplement to which they were entitled before, but did not receive. The minister, and I commend her, improved the situation by providing more information and making it more accessible.

However, there is one thing that needs to be mentioned. I am not saying that all seniors are poor, but the government is now acknowledging that for at least eight years, the poorest seniors have been denied what they needed. They were denied the minimum they needed, the vital minimum.

It seems to me that in terms of poverty, it would have been possible to find the money in this budget to give to these seniors, out of honesty. This is money that was taken from them, immorally, or that they were deprived of, immorally.

I would like to ask the member for Fredericton if he agrees with me that this budget should have included measures to reimburse these amounts owed to seniors.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for eight years Human Resources Development Canada kept an elderly couple in the dark when it came to their eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement. However, within 15 days of the death of his wife, Human Resources Development Canada wrote to André Le Corre to tell him that because of his wife's death, he would no longer be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain that her department was silent for 15 years, but only took 15 days to verify information with CCRA, assess the case, make a decision and write to the claimant to tell him that he would no longer—

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my two hon. colleagues who just made speeches to say how concerned I am about the war that has just been declared.

Last week, demonstrations were held in Montreal, Quebec City and my hometown of Trois-Rivières. Today, I want to talk to you about a young man, a 12-year-old, who spoke to at least 1,000 people at a rally. Throughout his speech, there were moments of eloquent silence while he searched for the right words to raise the awareness of the world leaders. From time to time, he would take a few seconds and wonder, “How can I put this?” This eloquent young man was able to communicate the pain he shared with the Iraqi children. He was feeling the pain these children will be subjected to because of the war.

I thought I had to share with the House what I learned from this eloquent young man. The children we meet in the schools and the petitions we receive make us realize how senseless this war is. Canada however could play a key role for peace. In the past, our peacekeepers have played a key role.

I want to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, how she sees Canada playing a key role for peace, a role that would help bring nations together instead of dividing them? I am worried about the state the United Nations will be in after this immoral and illegal war.

[Canada Elections Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words. I do not intend to use up all my time, but I did not want to let this opportunity go by.

There have been many references to René Lévesque and the Quebec legislation, which was a model for this bill. This brings back fond memories. When that legislation was passed, I was an MNA in Quebec, and I had the opportunity to discuss the reform of political parties and electoral reform.

My colleague from Jonquière reminded us that the Act to govern the financing of political parties gave rise to strong feelings when it was introduced. Clearly, opposition parties thought it was a senseless revolution. They raised the spectre of the administrative costs of implementing this legislation. A moment ago, a member said just about the same thing. As if there could be too high a price to pay for democracy.

Patronage comes at a terrible price. And we never even know just how terrible it is. The sponsorship scandal is a good example. Just imagine what we could find out. This is just the tip of the patronage iceberg.

Of course, there will be administrative costs associated with legislation on political party financing, but that is the price of democracy. It is wrong to say that this act is an expensive one to administer in Quebec. It has saved taxpayers lots of money.

The advantage is that, since then, Quebec taxpayers can say that they own their government. This is what democracy is all about. Individuals led by the government they elected know what that government is going to do, or at least should do according to their wishes.

However, the current anarchistic financing system means that big business, major unions and powerful people with the money to invest are the ones contributing to political parties. If they give money to political parties, you know that it is because it pays, because they get back ten times or more what they gave.

When I hear people argue that this kind of legislation is costly to administer, I think that this is a short-sighted. I am convinced, if we think logically, that the cost of democracy, the cost of democratizing political parties, is infinitely cheaper than the cost of political patronage.

I heard a minister of this government defend the bill during a radio interview. She gave examples to explain just how much, at times, the government is connected to those contributing to its campaign fund.

I think that this bill is a step forward. It is 25 years behind Quebec, but it is a step forward that must be noted.

As a member of the Bloc Quebecois and former member of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City who voted 25 years ago on Quebec's law, I must congratulate the government for taking this position. It is taking it a bit late, but better late than never. It is high time that this were done.

It is high time too that people in this country know that, as voters, we are now capable of owning the political parties that represent us and that the big corporations are not the owners of this political party and, finally, of the government.

We could have been more congratulatory but, unfortunately, the door to patronage has been left open for a little longer, until 2004.

I can just imagine the companies that are used to getting favours. My guess is that it must be pretty easy to fill up the coffers of the Liberal Party when there is a leadership race going on.

I think that if we wanted to go all the way in cleaning up political parties, we should have moved up the bill's coming into force. We should even have made the bill effective as soon as it was introduced in Parliament, in order to stop the abuse right now. Had we done so, the Liberal leadership race would have taken place under the principles set out in the bill, principles that will only apply much later.

I find it too bad that there is such a lengthy delay before the bill comes into force. We still have the opportunity to amend the bill so that it will be more than a wish list show that we are capable of walking the talk, and cleaning up our political and electoral practices.

There have been examples of patronage, such as the sponsorship scandal. I am sure that there are other examples we could give. They have cost this country quite a bit. As we are now making the effort to clean up our political parties, we should have started the process right away.

I would have liked the bill to come into effect much sooner. I also think that a $10,000 contribution to a political party is a lot of money. Most ordinary taxpayers cannot give a political party $10,000. In Quebec, the limit was set at $3,000. This would have been a good limit for this bill too.

I must recognize that this is a positive step. I hope the government will be generous enough to allow us to make amendments to this bill to make it even better in order to reassure voters that from now on, they will own their government even more.

It will not only be large corporations that will be able to exercise influence, but the voters will also be able to do so. By providing the funding themselves for political parties through taxes and contributions, they will have their say and there will be less risk of patronage.

Again, I applaud the government for this bill. I will give it my full support, as I did in Quebec's National Assembly when the legislation was passed there. However, give us the chance to improve it.

[Supply Management, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yet the Minister for International Trade has already said “We are working in close conjunction with the dairy industry”, while the President of the UPA has been quoted as saying, “We can feel the rug being pulled out from under us”. This contradicts the Minister's fine words of reassurance.

Can the minister guarantee that he is not, as is often the case, in the process of confronting us with a done deal?