Monique Guay

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

I hear people sighing, but this is true. There are indeed people who do not watch TV and do not read a paper.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot to say on this issue. I do not want my colleague across the way, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, to construe this as a personal attack. It is not, on the contrary. As a matter of fact, in committee we are very often on the same wavelength. She knows it, and I am not embarking on a personal attack, far from it.

However, we have a situation here, a very real situation. The Bloc raised the issue. The Bloc went on a tour. Indeed, my colleague from Champlain toured every single riding in Quebec to raise awareness among seniors associations, various groups, everyone in fact, by telling them “Listen, there is something there; you are entitled to it and you are not getting it”.

Even though we discovered it in committee, the government cannot take credit for it. It was my colleague from Champlain who went crusading from riding to riding to explain the situation and tell people “You are entitled to that. It is yours. Get the information. Inquire. Look at the documentation. Call HRDC. Apply for it, and you will see whether or not you are entitled to it”.

This woke everybody up, and not only senior citizens who are destitute, as I said earlier. For quite some time, calls poured in at my riding office. People would call and inquire “I don't know if I am entitled to this supplement. Could you help me, Ms. Guay? I do not understand the form. It is not clear”.

We helped these people. We did not try to play politics. We just tried to give back to people what was theirs.

Let us talk about retroactivity. If I am entitled to a certain amount of money out of the taxes I paid and if the government forgot to give it to me, it seems to me that I should get some interest back and have the right to ask for it eventually.

If I owe taxes to the government, it will invoke retroactivity and ask for the money owed to it, plus interest. I cannot understand why retroactivity would not apply to money which should have been paid to seniors. It should.

We are not talking about huge amounts. The government is proud of the fact that the surplus in the employment insurance fund is in the billions of dollars. There are billions of dollars in the surplus, but the government cannot give the seniors what they are entitled to.

There are not that many seniors who would be entitled to more than five years of retroactive payments. This money belongs to them, and we have to find a way to give it back to them.

The Bloc members are very sensitive to social policies. Our vision encompasses the defence of all, men, children, women and seniors. Every time we have talked about something positive for the Canadian population, the government has pulled the rug out from under our feet. Why? We are told, “It is too expensive. No. We will do it later”.

Let us talk about preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. We have been beating about the bush for ten years on that issue. This is the Department of Human Resources Development's responsibility. We hear all sorts of stories about somebody being hired specifically to study that matter, while this has been in effect for ten years in Quebec.

We do not need extensive studies to allow a woman to have a healthy child, without her having to experience physical or psychological problems. It is very simple. We need to adopt the preventive withdrawal. However, the government still lacks the courage to do so.

The Deaprtment of Human Resources Development deals with all sorts of issues. I was talking about this yesterday. I was in New York for the conference on children. We keep boasting abroad about all the aid we are giving on the international scene. It is something that we have to do. It is part of our responsibilities. However, in our own country, 20% of the children still live under the poverty line. Is that acceptable in Canada?

When it is time to do our homework here in Canada, if we did not have a solid opposition with sound social policies, there would not be too much activity on the other side of the House. This is why we find it quite insulting to hear the government say “It is not because of you” or “You are looking for recognition”.

It is not recognition that we are looking for. It is time to act. How is it that publicity suddenly appeared in the newspapers right after we undertook to increase public awareness in this regard?

How is it that there was no answer on this subject in employment centres? Since we have raised the issue, they finally decided to put people in charge of this issue.

It is unacceptable that the people across the way have no social sensitivity. Yet, when the Liberals were in the opposition, they had a social conscience; they defended people.

Today, they are in office, there is a surplus in the employment insurance fund, they make cuts in employment insurance benefits, they reduce the number of benefit weeks, they reduce the percentages of benefits and they do not give senior citizens what they are entitled to. It is unacceptable. The government has the means to act on this issue, but it is not doing it.

My colleague from Champlain has introduced a bill so that senior citizens can benefit from this guaranteed minimum income. If we can examine it in the House, it would be a big step forward. If the government really takes to heart social policy and the well-being of senior citizens, it ought to vote in favour of this legislation.

It is a Bloc Quebecois initiative, but we are not seeking recognition by it, we are only trying to push things ahead. It seems that we are the only ones to do so on this issue. We are taking initiatives.

You should see the array of bills coming from this party: they are innovative and reasonable and should be debated in the House. The government should seriously examine those bills instead of tossing them aside.

I would like the whole issue to be brought to light and I would like all the eligible seniors to be informed of their entitlement. The problem is that some of these people are very hard to reach. Some of them do not read the newspaper and some are disadvantaged people who do not necessarily watch television. There are sick people who do not have access to these things. Some are simply afraid of any kind of document. This does happen.

It happen even more among the elderly. They are afraid because they do not know what they are getting into. They fear that the government might come and take something away. We must find a way to reach these people. We must look for all sorts of approaches. There are ther senior citizens' associations where these people often meet; there are the hospitals, the long term care centres and the homes for elderly people. There are all sorts of networks, but we must reach them and I am not sure we can do it through the media and the television. We must go to them.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should set the record straight.

If the Bloc Quebecois had not discovered this issue, if we had not looked into it, if we had not managed to find out that so many elderly were not getting the guaranteed income supplement, the government would not have done anything. The government is defending its position on retroactivity by pointing to the fact that retroactivity is not recognized at the provincial level. That is not the point.

The point is that elderly people living on minimum incomes, people who are already in dire straits, did not and will not get retroactive payments, even though their application has been on file for five years. Imagine what it was like for these people who, for five years, could not benefit from these amounts, which were essential to their survival. These people are often older women living alone at home, including widows. They are barely surviving, but the government will not give them the guaranteed income supplement. It will not pay them retroactively.

The federal government must stop defending itself by blaming the provinces. The issue is a federal one. With all due respect to the hon. member opposite—we both sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development—whenever we raise an issue here in Ottawa, and it is often the Bloc Quebecois that does it, because it has a great social conscience, whenever we propose a positive measure for the public, the government always pulls the rug out from under our feet. This is unacceptable.

We present to this government proposals that are sensible, honest and fair to the public. And what does the government say? Nothing. It does nothing.

If we had not taken action regarding this issue, if we had not continued to take action regarding the forms, the same old thing would have happened again. This does not make any sense. It is because the Bloc Quebecois has acted that the government has no choice. It has to do something.

They can say all they want in this House, but I am proud of what we did and we will continue to do it. I hope that the member opposite will support us. We do not want to engage in petty politics on this issue. This is an important and priority issue. The government must put all its energy into it. These people are entitled to retroactivity and the government must pay. There is no other option.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question. When my colleague from Champlain talked about this issue with regard to the elderly, I received numerous phone calls in my riding. Many people were entitled to this benefit, but did not know it. They are often women at home who have trouble understanding the documents.

This document makes no sense whatsoever. It is absolutely unreadable. We even have trouble understanding it, so you can imagine what it must be like for people who are not used to dealing with such documents; it becomes incomprehensible.

I would like my colleague from Champlain to explain what he has done so far to make it easier for these elderly persons to read these documents and submit their application.

[Child Poverty, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is all very nice to shine on the international scene, but the government does not hesitate to spend millions of dollars on propaganda, while in Canada, one child in five goes to bed hungry.

Since the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that Canada's effort in this area is not good enough, what specific action does he intend to take to rectify a situation which everyone describes as unacceptable?

[Child Poverty, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the UN Conference on the Child held this week in New York, the Deputy Prime Minister announced $500,000 in funding to assist the poor children of this world. This is less than what the government paid for one phantom report from Groupaction.

Is the government not ashamed of the amount of its funding for poor children compared to what it is channeling to its cronies?

[Children, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, from May 8 to 10, I will be in New York City with the Canadian delegation attending the United Nations Special Session on Children.

Despite the progress that has been made as far as health is concerned, one of every twelve children in the world dies before the age of five years. In a country as rich as Canada, one in five does not get enough to eat, and this has a significant negative impact on that child's ability to learn.

Massive investments in favour of children's rights and development are more necessary than ever, if they are to escape from the vicious circle of poverty.

A campaign in favour of children's rights, around the theme “Say Yes for children” is under way just about everywhere in the world. I invite all parliamentarians and the population as a whole to add their voices to this initiative by signing the virtual petition to be found on the UNICEF web site.

Let us join in solidarity with the children of the world and let us demand of our governments that they keep the promises they have made to those children.

[Canada Labour Code, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we still do not have anti-scab legislation at the federal level.

By not including specific provisions to allow female workers to get paid in cases of preventive withdrawal, the Canada Labour Code creates two categories of pregnant workers in Quebec.

Will the minister finally make good on her promises and amend the Canada Labour Code, so that Quebec female workers who come under federal jurisdiction will stop being penalized?

[Canada Labour Code, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code does not provide adequate protection to workers who are on strike or locked out. Cargill workers in Baie-Comeau have been locked out for two years and are currently being replaced by scabs. As for Radio-Canada, it is using foreign companies to fill the void created by its locked out workers.

Does the Minister of Labour not think that it is urgent to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of scabs, as her government wanted to do as early as in 1990, and thus restore some balance in employer employee relations?

[Employment Insurance, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should do her homework and get to know her file.

Does the minister intend to amend the act by eliminating this discrimination and following up on the opinion of the Law Commission of Canada?