TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, October 20, 1994
Bill C-54. Motion for second reading 6944
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6952
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6962
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6964
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 6977
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6978
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 6979
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6979
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6982
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6982
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6983
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6984
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6984
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6986
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6986
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6986
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6987
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6988
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and of amendment 6988
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6995
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 6999
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7009
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 7015
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7019
6943
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 20, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report prepared by the
official parliamentary delegation of the Canada-France
Parliamentary Association which attended the 25th annual
meeting of the association held in Montreal, Charlevoix and
Iqualuit from July 16 to July 24, 1994.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to present petitions on behalf of several
hundred residents of Newfoundland. The signatories of these
petitions come from my riding of Burin-St. George's as well as
from the riding of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and the member for Gander-Grand Falls.
The petitions salute the importance of the mining industry as
the mainstay of employment in more than 150 communities
across the country and as an important contributor to Canada's
gross domestic product and exports.
The petitioners call on Parliament to take action that will
increase employment in the mining sector, promote exploration,
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities
and keep mining in Canada.
I have much pleasure in presenting these petitions and in
giving them my full support.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
two petitions. The first petitions the government and prays that
Parliament ensure that present provisions of the Criminal Code
of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously
and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would
sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, is from petitioners who pray and request
that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
It is an honour for me to present these petitions on behalf of
my constituents.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both on the
same subject. I would like to add that there are a growing
number of Canadians who continue to be concerned about the
proposition of more gun legislation in this country.
These petitioners call to the attention of the House that
current legislation allows law-abiding citizens of Canada to
own firearms and that current legislation regulates the
acquisition and possession of firearms through a complex,
expensive and rigorous regulatory scheme. In the vast majority
of serious crimes in which firearms were involved those
firearms were illegally acquired or were illegally possessed.
Therefore, the petitioners call on this House of Parliament
assembled to oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition
and possession and to provide strict guidelines and mandatory
sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the
commission of a violent crime. I concur with my petitioners.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, N.D.P.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by over 400 people
from Balgonie, Saskatchewan in my constituency.
6944
(1010 )
The petitioners point out that the present Prime Minister in a
letter dated August 1993 to Rural Dignity of Canada stated that
the Liberal party had ``vigorously spoken out against Canada
Post's plans to close or convert existing post offices and that the
Liberal Party viewed the closure and the conversion as a
deterioration of services to the public resulting in poorer
service, lower wages for employees and greater difficulty in
guaranteeing the security of the mail''.
The petitioners ask that a full corporate post office be
reinstated in the town of Balgonie which is a growing and
progressive community, and they want a full time postmaster.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present
two petitions this morning on behalf of my constituents in
Cumberland-Colchester.
The first petition requests that this Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the Canadian
Human Rights Act. The petitioners are requesting that we do not
alter the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I am pleased to present both of these petitions on behalf of my
constituents in Amherst, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of my
constituents today.
The first one deals with the young offenders legislation. My
constituents have expressed a number of concerns. I am pleased
to see that our government has addressed many of those in the
present legislation before this House as well as in the study that
is being undertaken by the justice committee.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition has to do with changes to the
Human Rights Act. My constituents are concerned that the
changes will concur or give societal approval to things that my
constituents do not believe appropriate.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6944
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Human
Resources Development) moved that Bill C-54, an act to
amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment
Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my very great honour to rise in the House today to
speak in support of Bill C-54, whose amendments which will
assist over 3.5 million Canadian seniors, in particular the 1.4
million seniors currently receiving the spouse's allowance or
the guaranteed income supplement.
The proposed amendments will enable these seniors, the
majority of whom are women, to receive the benefits to which
they are entitled with a minimum of red tape.
I am particularly pleased to speak on behalf of this bill
because so many of its amendments display a unifying theme,
namely establishing effective and efficient government and
providing better service to the public while at the same time
controlling costs.
This bill is a demonstration of our continuing commitment to
both current and future seniors. It follows improvements to
telephone service made earlier this year.
Members may recall that in February the Minister of Human
Resources Development responded to public concerns raised by
the Auditor General by ordering immediate action to ensure
pensioners were able to get answers to questions about their
benefits. These changes which involve the training of up to 200
additional client service officers and a $3 million investment to
expand and upgrade existing telephone equipment has certainly
been very effective.
6945
(1015)
In fact since May over 65,000 calls have been answered from
clients in Ontario and New Brunswick alone. These clients
would have had their calls go unanswered had the changes not
been made.
The amendments we are introducing today will move us a few
more steps down the road toward the administrative
effectiveness and excellent client service which we all seek.
They will also make it easier for you as members of Parliament
to represent constituents in their dealings with the department.
I want to speak a bit about the reform of income security
programs. The government is committed to providing
Canadians with a more streamlined and efficient system. This is
especially true in Human Resources Development Canada
where this is not just some philosophical notion but rather a
daily commitment to the clients who use the numerous
employment, training, social development and income security
programs which the department administers.
The redesign of our income security programs encompassing
the old age security program and the Canada pension plan is a
concrete example of this commitment. This project will vastly
improve the efficiency and quality of service to Canada's
seniors and pensioners. However, redesign is not something that
happens overnight but it is indeed a continual process.
Fortunately there are changes which can be made right away
and these are contained in the bill before the House. These
include an alternative to the annual application process for
income tested benefits under the old age security program;
streamlined appeals process and procedures to expedite the
hearing of appeals; one year retroactivity under the Canada
pension plan for retirement pensions payable after age 65; the
authority to forgive overpayments resulting from administrative
error or erroneous advice; and a number of technical
amendments which collectively enable the government to offer
better service to seniors in a more efficient manner. Also in the
bill is found changes to guaranteed income supplement and
spouses allowance.
One amendment of the bill is of special significance to low
income elderly Canadians, a disproportionate number of whom
are single women. Under the Old Age Security Act a basic
pension is provided to all those persons over the age of 65 who
have met the residency period established in the act.
The basic pension is the foundation of the old age security
program. In addition this program provides income tested
benefits such as GIS and SPA. These two programs ensure that
recipients have a guaranteed minimum income on which to live.
The amount of GIS or SPA an individual receives during the
fiscal year is based for the most part on income in the previous
calendar year. To obtain this information we have always
required that our clients file a statement of income each and
every year. The experience of experts in this area is that this can
be an onerous and even frightening experience for many seniors.
I recently received a letter from a volunteer agency composed
of seniors whose mandate is to ensure that other seniors are
aware and able to take advantage of the services and benefits
available to them. This group was asking if any alternatives to
the current application/reapplication process had ever been
considered. This question obviously flowed from its experience
in dealing with problems caused by the current system. The
woman who wrote on behalf of the group pointed out two
significant areas of concern which these volunteers had
encountered.
(1020)
To begin with, renewal applications are sent out each January
and must be returned by the month of March. This allows the
new benefit amounts to be calculated in time for the April
cheque.
The woman who wrote on behalf of the volunteer group
pointed out that some of the older recipients in her province
worry about being late in reapplying, so much so that many
complete it as soon as it arrives in January. The problem is that
people with some other source of income have not received their
information slips by the end of January. As a result, these
pensioners guess at what their income was in the previous year.
However, if they guess wrong it means that they either receive
an underpayment or an overpayment on their April cheque. In
the case of an underpayment, they may not receive sufficient
money to live. In the case of an overpayment, recipients could
end up having to pay money back to the government. As well,
some recipients set this form aside for safekeeping in
recognition of its importance and then forget to submit it when
they receive their information slip.
Sadly, it is no longer possible for staff to contact those seniors
who have not returned their forms by a certain date, since we
now have more than one million supplement clients to serve
each year. In any case, failure to file this form means that
pensioners' old age security cheques in April would contain
only the basic pension amount. At its worst, this could mean
receiving roughly $388 instead of $848, a 54 per cent drop in
income.
For someone relying on an income tested benefit to make ends
meet, this is of course a devastating experience. At that point
they need special help to get their forms completed and a cheque
issued as fast as possible. This, of course, adds to administrative
costs.
I am not saying that all pensioners, or even the majority of
pensioners, have difficulty with the renewal process. However,
6946
the fact is that there is a problem for some which is reason
enough for this government to find alternatives.
An amendment to the Old Age Security Act contained in the
bill would go a long way to alleviating these very real problems
facing very real people. The amendment would give the
Minister of Human Resources Development the authority to
waive the requirement for an individual to reapply each year.
It will be some time before we are able to use this waiver
extensively. However, some of the cases where this waiver could
be used either immediately or in the very near future include the
following: Pensioners whose income does not change from year
to year, a situation common among more elderly seniors;
pensioners whose only other source of income is the Canada
pension plan, which means that my department already has the
income information necessary to calculate the income tested
benefits under the old age security program; and, pensioners
who have already filed their income tax returns by the end of
March.
For this group, the income information could be obtained
directly from Revenue Canada. Obtaining information directly
from Revenue Canada would do more than provide an improved
client service. It would also reduce a great deal of duplication
both for seniors and for the government. Seniors would no
longer have to provide what is effectively the same information
to two government departments. In turn, the role of the
Department of Human Resources Development plays in the
renewal process would become more efficient because it would
get the correct information from Revenue Canada about an
individual's income from the first.
This means that the underpayments and overpayments on
many accounts would be eliminated. Efficiencies such as this
would go a long way to streamlining service to the public, while
at the same time reducing government expenditures. As well,
there would be a reduction in the paper burden imposed on those
who are least able to cope with it.
Other amendments in the bill would also have significant
benefits for pensioners. The OAS appeal process is yet another
example. It involves changes to the old age security appeal
process. Currently any client dissatisfied with the decision
under the OAS act may ask for a reconsideration which is an
internal review of their file or the client can go directly to a
review tribunal which is made up of three members, a
representative of the client, a representative of the minister and
a chair who is agreed by the other two.
(1025)
There are a number of problems with this process which I feel
the amendments will go a long way to alleviate. First we are
proposing that the reconsideration stage be mandatory for all
appeals, so that clients would be assured of a speedy review of
their case to ensure that the decision they originally received
was in fact the correct one.
Experience has shown that reconsideration is the fastest way
to change the original decision, especially if an error occurred or
if there was simply something lacking in the documentation
submitted the first time around. This happens when clients bring
forward new information that was not available when the
original decision was made.
Second, we are proposing to have all OAS review tribunals
heard by the review tribunals correctly in place under the
Canada pension plan. As I am sure hon. members can appreciate,
it is often very difficult to find three volunteers who are all able
to be at the same place at the same time, during business hours,
particularly in remote locations. In fact there are currently
appeals under the OAS program that have been waiting to be
heard for more than two years.
By contrast the Canada pension plan review tribunals in place
since 1992 are proving very efficient. These tribunals are
composed of three members chosen from a panel appointed for
just this purpose. As a result we have a significant number of
people who are committed to be available to take part in the
appeal process in all parts of this very large country.
As well, because members hear a number of appeals during
their tenure, they develop a very good working knowledge of the
program on which they are being asked to adjudicate.
On the issue of war crimes, we are also proposing
amendments which complement Canada's commitment to the
international community in its efforts to bring to justice persons
suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
To further the important work of the Solicitor General, the
department is proposing amendments to the information
disclosure provision of the Canada pension plan, the Old Age
Security Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act by allowing
the commissioner of the RCMP, the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada access to information controlled by
our department.
Canada is strengthening its ability to be a meaningful partner
in this effort. I assure hon. members that this access will be
strictly controlled and will be restricted to actions conducted by
Canada in Canada.
On the information exchanges with veterans affairs, other
changes to the information provisions contained in the Canada
pension plan and Old Age Security Act will follow for expanded
information exchanges in veterans affairs. Even though many of
our clients are the same our ability to communicate with each
other has been very limited.
6947
In this time of economic restraint it is important that we
govern as efficiently as possible. It is also important that people
will receive their correct entitlements under various
government programs. Better communications with veterans
affairs will meet both of these objectives.
On the issue of pensioner activity I now want to outline a
significant amendment to the Canada pension plan contained in
the bill, significant because of why it is being made; that is, the
introduction of a 12-month retroactivity period for Canada
pension plan retirement applications by persons over the age of
65.
In 1987 with the introduction of flexible retirement under the
CPP it became possible to receive an actuarially adjusted
retirement pension from age 60 to age 70. The amount of an
individual's benefit is based in part on the age at which the
pension begins. Specifically the benefit is reduced by .5 per cent
for each month an applicant is under age 65 or increased by .5
per cent for each month the applicant is over the age of 65.
(1030 )
To complement this change, it was felt that there was no
further need for retroactive retirement pensions prior to age 70.
If someone delayed applying for retirement pension past age 65,
their benefit would be adjusted to reflect this fact.
However, in the ensuing seven years, there have been some
complaints from people over the age of 65 who state that they
would rather have had the option of receiving up to 12 months of
retroactive benefits. This would be in lieu of the increase of up
to 6 per cent in their monthly entitlement that a delay of 12
months represents.
This change is not significant if we look at the number of
people who have requested it. However, ask any one of the
individuals who wants to choose the retroactivity option and
they will tell you how significant it is to them.
Usually they have delayed a few months in applying after
their 65th birthday and they really cannot understand why they
cannot get benefits back to that time. Frankly, neither can I. It is
not a matter of costs since the extra months of payments are
balanced by actual adjustments.
Another significant change proposed by this legislation
relates to overpayments which occasionally occur under the Old
Age Security Act. When overpayment was solely the result of an
administrative error the Minister of Human Resources
Development under this legislation would have the authority to
give such an overpayment. This mirrors a provision that
currently exists under the Canada pension plan.
Today I have outlined the major changes the government is
proposing to OAS and CPP legislation. However there are
several other technical amendments that will also help us better
serve pensioners.
In conclusion, these amendments taken together will result in
improved service to our clients, reduce administrative costs and
significantly reduce duplication and paper burden both to our
clients and to the government departments involved.
The amendments contained in this bill represent one more
step in this government's commitment to providing Canadians
with the excellent government services they deserve while at the
same time reducing costs as much as possible.
Finally, the amendments in this bill will go a long way toward
helping making life a little easier for our seniors who have after
all made such a tremendous contribution to the building of this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Allowances Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act, was tabled on October 7 by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
The proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Program
and the Canada Pension Plan will provide for certain
improvements that will benefit senior citizens, but the bill's lack
of clarity is certainly no guarantee that senior citizens will have
an adequate level of financial security. The bill may even reduce
the incomes of some seniors.
As the critic for seniors' issues, it is my duty to ensure that the
social security review does not become an exercise in making
cuts in all programs designed to protect the neediest in our
society, especially senior citizens.
Most senior citizens have modest incomes. According to a
report by the National Advisory Council on Aging, disposable
incomes of senior citizens were as follows: the incomes of
families headed by seniors were 68 to 80 per cent of the incomes
of other Canadian families, depending on the income measure
used and the Canadian region concerned. In 1989, for instance,
the average income of families headed by seniors was only
$37,462 or 72 per cent of the incomes of families where the head
of the family was under 65.
(1035)
In 1989, the average income of single persons aged 65 or over
was $16,316, while the average income of single persons under
65 was $23,080. A single person is an individual who lives alone
or in a household where the person is not related to other
members of the household. Single persons, irrespective of their
age, tend to have relatively low incomes. Consequently, if we
consider single persons as a group, the gap between senior
citizens and the rest of the population is not as wide as it is
between families, but it is still substantial.
6948
Responsibility for seniors is shared by two departments,
Human Resources Development and Health, with the Seniors
Secretariat, which is responsible for giving seniors the
information they need on federal programs and services, while
providing liaison with the federal and provincial departments
responsible for programs for senior citizens. Why not have a
minister responsible for senior citizens, like the previous
government? I asked this question at the very beginning of my
term as a member of this House.
In addition, the National Advisory Council on Aging advises
the Minister of Health on the quality of life of senior citizens,
either at the request of the minister or on its own initiative. The
council's role consists in disseminating information and
publishing reports, for instance. The federal government assists
senior citizens mainly through two programs: Old Age Security
and the Canada Pension Plan, and a number of tax measures.
The purpose of the OAS program is to provide seniors with a
decent level of income. The program includes three kinds of
benefits under the Old Age Security Act. The basic old age
security pensions provide seniors with the basis for a decent
level of income. Pensions are paid to all Canadians and
Quebecers 65 years of age and over who meet residence
requirements. They are taxable and subject to partial or full
clawback in the case of seniors with high incomes.
The guaranteed income supplement ensures a minimum level
of income to old age security pensioners. Benefits are paid to old
age security pensioners who have a low or modest income. The
amount of benefits is established through an assessment of
annual income, generally based on the individual's income for
the previous year areported for tax purposes.
The spouses's allowance helps married, retired and
low-income couples who receive only one old age security
pension or guaranteed income supplement, as well as
low-income widows and widowers, aged 60 to 64, who meet the
old age security requirements in terms of residency. Benefits are
determined through an income assessment similar to the one
applicable to the guaranteed income supplement. The Canada
Pension Plan is a mandatory and contributive social insurance
program designed to protect Canadian workers and their
families against a loss of income due to death, disability or
retirement.
Retirement pension benefits are equal to 25 per cent of the
pensionable earnings of the contributor, with this average being
established for the net qualifying period. These benefits will
help about 2 million pensioners each month, for a volume of
transactions of $9.6 billion in 1993-94. Survivor's benefits
consist of a monthly benefit paid to surviving spouses of
deceased contributors, an overall benefit paid to the succession
and orphan benefits paid each month to children of deceased
contributors. Benefits paid to surviving spouses are reduced if
spouses are aged 35 to 45, are not invalid or have no children.
Disability payments are made monthly to contributors who have
not yet reached 65 years old and have a chronic and serious
disability and to their dependent children who are 18 years old
or less or 18 to 25 if they are full time students. In 1993-94,
approximately $2.5 billion will be paid to 325,000 recipients
every month.
(1040)
Bill C-54 highlights contain, among other things, two
specific amendments which will have a positive impact on the
programs for the elderly and the amendments are the following.
Spouse's allowances automatically become old age security
benefits when the recipients reach 65 years old. The guaranteed
income supplement and spouse's allowances will be paid even
when applications are late. The intent of the proposal is to
amend the Old Age Security Act in order for the minister to be
able to exempt some recipients from filing an annual application
for the renewal of the guaranteed income supplement and
spouse's allowances.
However, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support Bill C-54's
provisions which change access to some information, since the
government wants to increase the number of departments,
agencies and persons given access to personal information used
in the administration of the acts amended by this bill.
According to the legislation as it stands now, the agencies
having access to information are the departments of National
Revenue, Finance and Supply and Services, the Employment
and Immigration Commission, Statistics Canada and any
provincial authorities administering an assistance program.
These agencies do have access providing the information deals
only with the status of recipients or the amount of the benefits or
where disclosure of information is required for the purposes of
administering the act.
We must be careful when gathering personal information on
elderly people, because this can be used for other purposes. We
must protect them from possible abuse. The government has not
demonstrated that privileged information disclosure was
required and essential. The government must always be
accountable to elderly people by showing that the gathering of
such information is not abusive.
Governments are encroaching more and more on the private
lives of people, as we saw recently in the Grant Bristow case.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois does not accept the clauses
providing for sanctions in case of illegal communication
because they do not go far enough.
Also the bill's clauses relating to information add the
following agencies to the list of those who can have access to
that
6949
information, namely Canada Post, Correctional Services of
Canada, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General and
even federal MPs and any other person designated by the
minister as a health professional.
Some information will be made available to a greater number
of departments. It is important to note that Correctional Services
of Canada will have access to information on pensioner inmates
in order to force them to pay back part of the costs of their
detention.
The Department of Justice as well as the Commissioner of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police will have access to obtain
information that could help them catch war criminals. Of
course, this is aimed at Nazis who migrated to Canada after the
last World War, among others. It is not explained why it is
necessary to include any other person designated as a health
professional by the minister. It is also mentioned that it would be
useful to include Canada Post since that agency could, by using
new techniques, help speed up the processing of pensioners'
cheques.
(1045)
Another important point in Bill C-54 has to do with the
government's plan to save money. From now on, clients who
apply late for their pension will be able to receive up to one
year's retroactive payment of benefits. In the case of Old Age
Security, this is a reduction from five years to one year. For the
Canada Pension Plan, this kind of situation is dealt with through
actuarial adjustments.
This provision will come into force on April 1st, 1995.
However, pensioners who owe money to the OAS plan will have
their debt forgiven if it is the result of an administrative error or
erroneous advice on the part of a departmental official.
The maximum deadline for the recovery of OAS
overpayments will be eliminated. This way, the government will
be able to get back between one and two million dollars.
Moreover, the minister may stay payment of benefits pending
an appel or a judicial review, thus depriving beneficiaries of
money they need since it is often their only source of income.
The Old Age Security pension and the guaranteed income
supplement are paid to 72 per cent of women pensioners and 50
per cent of men. Only 5 per cent of senior citizens have incomes
above $50,000. Their life expectancy has improved and we must
ensure that these senior citizens lead a full and satisfying life
during these extra years.
By putting more stringent conditions on programs for senior
citizens, the government is merely cutting the income of these
people. The government is saying that the retroactive period has
been shortened from five years to one year, to make the OAS
program consistent with that of the Canada Pension Plan.
According to the present legislation, the government can go
back a maximum of two years. Abolishing this provision would
save the government between one and two million dollars.
Given that people are protected from possible errors by civil
servants, they would not have to refund any excess payment in
such a case. The minister should tell us where he is going to take
that money.
In the event of an appeal, the minister will be authorized to
delay payment. Yet, the government itself recognizes that a
large percentage of pensioners have no other incomes.
Let us not forget that the federal government has decided to
reduce the tax credit given to senior citizens. At the present
time, all taxpayers 65 and over can claim a tax credit equivalent
to 17 per cent of $3,482 at the federal level, and 20 per cent of
$2,200 in Quebec. This tax credit is non-refundable, that is to
say, taxpayers can use it to reduce the tax they owe, but they
cannot ask for a cash refund on any unused portion of it.
However, such an unused part can be transferred to the spouse.
This tax credit amounts to a reduction of federal tax of about
$610 per year for all tax-paying senior citizens. In most
provinces, and in Quebec in particular, this credit also reduces
the provincial tax. The combined reduction of federal and
provincial taxes averages about $950, but in Quebec it comes to
about $1,050.
On May 31 of this year, I took the floor to oppose any
reduction of the tax credit for senior citizens. I stressed that once
again the meagre efforts to reduce spending were done at the
expense of the neediest. At that time, I also mentioned that, on
May 10, I had questioned the minister responsible for seniors
about the projected use of so-called voice mail boxes to answer
inquiries from senior citizens.
(1050)
The Minister of Human Resources Development merely
stressed the efficiency of the proposed service. I explained that a
lot of seniors hate to use this type of service and that the
golden-age club representative voiced their concerns. In the last
year, the Minister of Human Resources Development received
numerous letters from Quebec members of the AFEAS, the
Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale. Here are
excerpts from one of them:
We heard that your department, Human Resources Development Canada, is
planning to use voice mail in its communications with senior citizens wanting
information on income security matters.
We believe this measure will affect people who may naturally be at a loss
when confronted by this technology. Moreover, many of them do not have the
required telephone sets.
6950
We AFEAS members are strongly opposed to your project to provide services to
seniors through voice mail instead of having real people answer questions about
income security.
We ask you to reconsider this unfortunate decision as soon as possible.
On May 11, 1994, I insisted again. I then asked the House:
Why does the federal government insist on attacking senior
citizens, considering that most of them find it very difficult to
deal with a system that is so impersonal?
Last September 28 in this House, I asked the following
question of the Minister of Human Resources Development:
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development still
intend to slash programs for seniors in order to finance other
federal government programs? Will we have to wait until after
the Quebec referendum to know the answer?
On September 29, I rose again in this House, in an attempt to
get a formal commitment from the government not to tax
RRSPs. The purpose of my remarks is not to reject all the
measures in Bill C-54 affecting senior citizens, given that
certain rules that complicated their lives unnecessarily have
been relaxed.
However, the government must guarantee seniors a certain
security by not slashing the social programs that affect them.
The government's direct expenses associated with senior
benefits, which include old age security, the guaranteed income
supplement and the spouse's allowance, represent $20.6 billion
in 1994-1995. The burden carried by seniors must be fair and
equitable. Recent studies indicate that one person in eight is
over 65.
In ten years, the number of people 65 and older will increase
by at least 40 per cent. More Canadians aged 65 and older will
have to rely on the ability to pay of working Canadians aged 15
to 64. However, many seniors are still active and prefer to live at
home, look after themselves and make their own decisions.
With respect to seniors who wish to live together, one measure
that I find very discriminatory is reducing old age security
payments when seniors living in a residence decide to share an
apartment with their spouse. Do you not think that more
humanity, more generosity and less pettiness are in order?
In conclusion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Châteauguay, that all the words after the word ``that'' be struck
out and the following substituted:
``this House declines to give second reading reading to Bill C-54, An Act to amend
the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special
Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it does not provide a
penalty under the Criminal Code for the disclosure of personal information
concerning beneficiaries to persons who are not legally authorized to such
information pursuant to Access to Privileged Information.''
(1055)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Hon. colleagues, there
have been discussions, and the amendment is in order.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as critic for human resources development I have some
statements to make about the bill.
For the benefit of Canadians who are joining the debate by
television, I would like to set out the purpose of the bill. It deals
with major pieces of legislation involving enormous
expenditures by the government. However the bill is not a major
initiative. It is a piece of housekeeping and its purpose,
according to the summary, is to improve services to clients to
allow for more efficient program administration and to increase
efficiency between programs in the case of old age security and
the Canada pension plan.
It is almost exclusively concerned with amendments to the
Old Age Security Act, that is the first 16 pages of the bill; with
the CPP act which takes us through the first 30 pages of the bill;
with the Children's Special Allowances Act which takes up a
couple of pages; and with the Unemployment Insurance Act
which takes up another couple of pages. These acts are
housekeeping in nature but, as has been stated by my colleague
from the Bloc, there are some policy considerations that should
be brought out as we debate the piece of legislation.
The government speaker who spoke on the bill in the House
this morning played rather heavily on the government's
``commitment to seniors''. Back in January the government
introduced with much fanfare a review of our social security
system. I will read from the terms of reference that were put
forward to the House respecting that review: ``that the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development be directed to
consult broadly, to analyse and to make recommendations
regarding the modernization and restructuring of Canada's
social security system'', and this is the operative part, ``with
particular reference to the needs of families with children, youth
and working age adults''.
Seniors are quite conspicuous by their absence from this
mandate and review of the social security system. At the time
the mandate was debated in the House I stood and proposed that
it was deficient in that it ignored our social security system as it
related to seniors. Seniors are some of the people most impacted
by our social systems. OAS, CPP and health care are very much
of concern to seniors. Yet their interests were ignored in the
terms of reference for the review. Now the government stands
and plays the violin about its commitment to seniors. That is a
little hypocritical.
6951
(1100)
The bill does one thing for Canadians. It points out the
enormous complexity of the legislation and administration of
our social programs. This complexity catches Canadians in
many ways and causes their lives to be a nightmare of forms,
deadlines, red tape, information exchanges, letters, phone calls
and all things that go along with an enormous state bureaucracy
that is supposed to look after us but in fact does not do it very
well.
After one year in office the Liberal answer to the need to
address the substantive dysfunction of a lot of our social
programs, and the concern that the services to Canadians are
eroding and cannot be sustained, is to bring forth a bit of
housekeeping legislation. That is simply not good enough for
Canadians. We need to be serious about addressing our social
programs.
I will talk about that in a moment but first I will address the
concern about confidentiality. Canadians want to see some
common sense in this area. For example, if a non-citizen,
someone from another country, comes to Canada, decides to stay
for reasons we can certainly well understand and makes
applications as a refugee, that the individual is on welfare or
some other social program cannot be disclosed to Canadians
trying to evaluate which people should be allowed to come to
our country and be accepted as citizens to help build our nation.
There are many areas where the concern about confidentiality
interferes with efficient, effective and common sense
administration of our own system. For example, if someone
applies for benefits often it cannot be disclosed in other
jurisdictions or to administrators of other programs. That is one
of the reasons we have abuse, inefficiency and overlap.
We need to be very sensible when we address this area and not
go overboard by suggesting that nobody, especially the system
that is paying the bills, has a right to know what individual
Canadians are receiving in benefits.
The real issue is not that we need a little tinkering with our
programs, a little housekeeping legislation from time to time to
try to smooth the bureaucratic wheels. As we know these
programs are in far deeper trouble than that. What is really
needed is a substantial review and reform of our income security
programs and our social programs and that is what we are not
receiving from the government.
The review taking place presently totally ignores all the
programs of most concern to seniors. It totally ignores CPP. It
totally ignores old age security. It totally ignores health care.
Government says this is coming. Our social system is just that. It
is a system. All these programs are interrelated. If changes are
made to program a it will impact on programs b, c and d. That is
the way it works. To do this piecemeal, to look at one program,
then maybe another and a couple of years down the road we will
get around to looking at the rest, is not the way to look in a
coherent, effective and clear manner at how social programs
should be administered.
(1105)
A lot of people refer to the old saying: if it ain't broke don't
fix it. Why are we looking at social programs? Why has the
government brought in the review of social programs in
Canada? It is fairly clear to everyone in the House and certainly
to most Canadians why it is necessary. Although these programs
are barely 30 years old, they are already unsustainable
financially. They are not paying their own way. The cost of these
programs is growing astronomically year by year and, worst of
all, they have been largely financed on the backs of our children.
The bill for much of the spending on these programs which are
so nice for us today is being handed to our children tomorrow.
We are mortgaging our future so that we can have these
programs. How long have we even had them? We have had them
for 30 years. For 30 years we have impoverished our country and
we are impoverishing our children so that we can have enormous
benefits and an enormous bureaucracy to administer them. What
have we accomplished? Very little as far as the long term benefit
to the country is concerned.
Someone needs to stand and say this and do something about
it. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership and
for a good, common sense grappling with the issues facing us
not just today but in the future. We do not see that happening.
We have a government that is continuing to say mortgaging
our country to the tune of $100 billion during its term in office is
okay. It will celebrate if that is all it does: if it only puts us in the
hole by $25 billion a year it has done a great job for us!
Canadians will beg to differ and certainly our children will beg
to differ.
Seniors are at risk unless something is done. This is why many
seniors are dependent upon pension benefits they have counted
on to sustain them in their retirement years. It is very clear from
anybody looking at these programs that in coming years our
seniors will be sadly disappointed.
In just 15 short years we will have 40 per cent more retired
Canadians than we have today. That is a huge increase. These
Canadians will be looking for old age security payments. They
will be looking for Canada pension plan payments. They will be
looking to the health care system to make sure that their
increased medical needs are covered and looked after.
Yet what is happening? These programs are costing more and
more money. They are increasing the debt burden on our country
6952
and are in serious trouble by any standard. Yet there has been no
substantial, serious or urgent look at the situation.
If we look at the Canada pension plan into which people like
me faithfully and without any free will on the matter paid for so
many years of our working lives, we see that the premiums to
sustain the program have already had to rise. By the most
moderate analysis they will be rising to at least 13 per cent by
the time the next generation is paying our pensions. Some
analysts suggest that the burden on future workers and taxpayers
could be as high as 16 per cent. This off the top payment, even if
it were only 10 per cent, will be in addition to the enormous
yearly interest that will have to be paid on the money that we
borrowed and to the payment for all the other programs we will
be using.
Do we seriously think the taxpayer of the future, in addition to
paying the interest, paying for all the other programs to sustain
society, trying to keep their lives together and building
businesses and professional lives are going to pay an additional
10 per cent, 13 per cent or 16 per cent off the top so that you and
I, Mr. Speaker, can have the Canada pension plan? That is not
going to happen.
The future taxpayer will rise up in revolt and say that we are
the guys that got them into the mess and if we think they are
going to pay that much money off the top of their earnings in
addition to everything else so we can have Canada pension fund
benefits, we can think again; it is not going to happen. I can
scarcely blame them.
(1110 )
Somebody has to get serious about the situation. Just going
along with it and saying ``don't worry, be happy; it will all work
out'' is not good enough.
The future taxpayer will have to pay billions and billions of
dollars every year in interest on what we have borrowed. This
year, for example, we are having to dig into our pockets for at
least $40 billion-and it looks like it will be $44 billion-to pay
interest on money the Liberal and Conservative governments
have borrowed in the last 25 years. In 25 years they have
managed to extract from our economy an obligation for $44
billion, and that is $44 billion that cannot be used for old age
security, Canada pension plan, health care and all other
programs we desperately need.
That interest obligation is rising. The government is going to
think it is doing us all a favour if it only rises by another $5
billion or $6 billion every year due to its feeble stewardship over
the next four years of its mandate.
We cannot continue to impoverish our future by not getting a
grip on the issue today. We simply have to say we cannot
continue to obligate our children to take $40 billion or $50
billion every year out of our economy, out of their hard earned
pay, out of our economic activity, because we did not have the
courage and the good sense to do what is right: to live within our
means and pay our own way.
These programs have to be reorganized so that the people who
really need them can count on them in the future. They have to
be reorganized so that the state does not continue to have this
enormous inefficient and ineffective bureaucratic growth,
saying that it is going to look after us when it is abundantly clear
that even at great cost, great inefficiency and great numbers of
bureaucrats and administrative tribunals, it is simply not
working and will not continue to work.
Last of all, we need to ensure these programs will be
something we can continue to count on and pay for into the
future. That is absolutely essential. It is a cruel deception for the
government to tell Canadians it is looking after things, that
everything is all right and that it is going to reward seniors who
have invested in the country by making sure they get the
programs. The government's inaction is virtually ensuring that
our seniors will not be getting these programs, even in the
foreseeable future as numbers of seniors rise.
I urge the House today not to look just at housekeeping
legislation and a few little administrative changes to help a few
people caught in the bureaucratic jungle. That is good; that is
nice. However the answer is not to tinker with the programs. The
answer is to look at the whole system that we have set up, all the
structure that is not working after a mere 30 years or sometimes
less, and have the courage, the vision and the leadership to get a
grip on the situation and turn it around so that all Canadians can
feel secure and confident that when they need help it will be
there; otherwise the government will keep its hand out of their
pockets and its nose out of their business.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have now moved to
the next stage of the debate and from now on, pursuant to
Standing Order 74, members will be allowed to make 20-minute
speeches, subject to a 10-minute question and comment period.
Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak
to the bill before us. I want to emphasize a specific aspect of the
bill, namely the proposed amendments to the Old Age Security
Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Unemployment Insurance
Act. These amendments are intended to advance the cause of
social justice in this country.
The proposed enactments would allow the government to
disclose information to the Commissioner of the RCMP for the
sole purpose of facilitating investigations, prosecutions and
6953
extradition activities in relation to individuals suspected of
having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.
(1115)
The existing OAS and RPC legislation does not allow us to
disclose privileged information, unless the person in question
has been charged formally. Regarding unemployment insurance,
the present legislation prohibits the disclosure of certain
information, but does not prescribe the type of information that
can be released in other instances to facilitate investigations.
The amendments contained in this bill will standardize the
circumstances under which information can be communicated
to the RCMP regarding the three programs I mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that, with the new legislation, the Commissioner of the RCMP,
the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada are
the three persons to whom the information could be made
available. It would be strictly forbidden, under any
circumstances, to disclose information concerning any
beneficiary to a foreign organization.
In 1985, the federal government instituted the Commission of
Inquiry on War Criminals, presided by the hon. Justice
Deschênes. The commission tabled its report in the House of
Commons in March of 1987. It recommended that the RCMP
and the Department of Justice work together to investigate war
crimes that were said to have been committed between 1939 and
1945, that is to say during the last World War.
The report also contained a list of people presumed to be war
criminals living in Canada. Both the RCMP and the Department
of Justice worked hard to find and charge these people.
Unfortunately, this was no easy task. Despite the considerable
resources invested by Canada and 17 other countries, the RCMP
was unable to find many of those suspected of war crimes or
crimes against humanity. The lack of information is, of course,
the main reason behind this lack of success.
Furthermore, efforts to obtain relevant information overseas
were compromised since the information was destroyed.
Although such information exists in Canada, it is more often
than not impossible to access because of the restrictions
imposed, not to make war criminals untouchable but to protect
the legitimate rights of honest Canadians.
[English]
Given the age of the individuals in question, the clientele of
the OAS and the CPP programs, the databases for these
programs are clearly a valuable source of information for
locating and identifying persons alleged to have committed war
crimes. A first step toward providing access to this information
was taken in 1992 when the legislation for OAS and CPP was
amended to allow the release of confidential information where
a criminal charge had been laid.
However the loosening up of the existing restrictions did not
prove to be all that helpful to investigators since a charge cannot
be laid if the RCMP is not certain that the suspect is in fact a war
criminal. Unfortunately the needed information to establish this
can only be released after a charge has been laid.
There are two types of information belonging to the
unemployment insurance program which could be of value to
investigators. The first type is the information given by the
persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Given the
ages of the suspected war criminals few of them are likely to still
be in the labour force let alone collecting unemployment
insurance. However, there may be exceptions and providing the
RCMP access to UI client information could in fact provide the
missing link needed in a few cases.
This type of information will be of valuable assistance in the
investigation of modern war crimes and crimes against
humanity. As well it would mean that all beneficiary
information under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human
Resources Development would be treated in essentially the
same way for war crimes investigations.
(1120 )
It is also important to emphasize that providing access to
client information in this one instance does not mean the
government is taking its responsibility to safeguard client
information any less seriously. OAS, CPP and UI privacy
provisions have always been deliberately restrictive because of
the nature of the information collected. Public servants who
administer these programs are required to collect personal
information from millions of Canadians in order to manage
these programs.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This is a very
important debate, so I would like to call a quorum please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I see a quorum. Resuming
debate.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very important
debate. I should also advise hon. members opposite that this
government takes its work very seriously. I am also informed
there are 15 committees taking place today on a variety of
subjects.
I would like to continue my speech.
An hon. member: We want your views.
Mr. Gagnon: I will give you some views later on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With the greatest
respect to all my colleagues on both sides of the House, please
direct all your interventions through the Chair so that we might
6954
continue to have the usual customary respectful debate we are
accustomed to in this House.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, public servants who administer
these programs are required to collect personal information
from millions of Canadians in order to manage these programs.
It would be a tremendous administrative obstacle if clients
refused to give officials of the Department of Human Resources
Development personal information because they feared this
information would not be adequately protected. Confidentiality
provisions were made as restrictive as they are to protect
Canadians from unwelcome intrusions.
However, Canadians are also concerned about criminals who
have entered Canada and may be living in their midst. While
Canadians value their privacy they also want justice.
[Translation]
Finally, there remains another amendment that I would like to
explain to all members of the House. It is the amendment to the
Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, which
results from another amendment that has been proposed by the
Solicitor General.
This amendment would allow the Department of Human
Resources Development to provide information on OAS and
CPP benefits now paid to prison inmates. This must surely be of
interest to Reform Party members.
The goal is to deduct housing and feeding costs from these
inmates' income. The Solicitor General could then receive from
the Department of Human Resources Development accurate
information on inmates' income so he can make reasonable
deductions.
Is it right that inmates are housed and fed for free and that they
can accumulate income from federal benefits which are, of
course, eventually paid for by the government and by Canadian
taxpayers? I do not think so. Pensioners who are not criminals
must pay their own housing and other costs. To ensure a
minimum level of fairness and responsibility, the same principle
should apply to prison inmates, especially if they also receive
federal benefits.
In conclusion, I hope that my explanations have helped to
establish the validity of some of the amendments in this bill and
that all members now have the information they need to explain
in turn these amendments to their constituents.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member opposite is of course in favour of the bill and is
telling us now that he supports it mainly for the sake of social
justice. I wonder, Mr. Speaker.
(1125)
The confidential information that he praised and which would
be made available to the RCMP would just be a tool to expose
some cheaters of unemployment insurance or in other areas.
The bill as presented does not contain enough measures to
limit it to that. Knowing the way RCMP officers work, we
noticed in past years that they used these famous lists to do their
work, although this information was not available. We need only
recall the Parti Quebecois's membership list. The RCMP tried to
obtain a copy and then tried to see if members on that list were
breaking certain laws.
So I ask the hon. member the following question: Does this
bill in its present form guarantee us that the information which
will be made available to the RCMP will be used only by that
force and not for other unintended purposes?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think that a long time has passed
since the unfortunate events of the 1970s; however, I can assure
him that, under the terms of the law as proposed, we will ensure
the confidentiality of information on Canadians. Nevertheless,
we should still take into account the presence of some war
criminals, or at least consider certain crimes against humanity
that they committed. Of course, I referred to the period from
1939 to 1945, but we must still understand that others who took
part in wars which are still going on, be it in Yugoslavia or
Somalia or elsewhere in the world, committed crimes which are
as atrocious as those committed from 1939 to 1945 for which
people were charged.
Unfortunately, such people try to enter Canada and settle
among us, and I believe that it is the duty of the RCMP, the
Government of Canada and all hon. members here in this House
to denounce the presence of any war criminals in this country.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am a
few years away from becoming a senior. The hon. member is
many more years away from becoming a senior; it is way out
there in front of him as he points out.
Based on the hon. member's age and notwithstanding the
contributions he is making to the Canada pension plan now, all
of us know there is an unfunded liability there that we are not
currently accounting for that we are all paying. Knowing that,
does he believe there will be sufficient funds in the account?
Does he believe that future generations will be able to make the
size of premium payments required for this hon. member to
receive his CPP when he reaches the age of 65, whether or not he
elects to get it at an earlier age? If he does not believe that, what
does he think this government should do about it?
6955
The other issue I would like to touch upon is a little closer
to my heart. There is another fund that we look after in our
social programs. We in the Reform Party, as do government
members-they have said it often enough-care about the truly
needy. We care about providing services, funding and facilities
for those people who really and truly need it. The problem in
our government today however is that we have not spent enough
time and effort to establish where that line is, or the grey area
where it is, so that we can start helping those people.
(1130 )
OAS is an unfunded program currently which nobody since
1971 has paid into. I would like the hon. member, based on his
youthful experience, to say whether he believes that 25 years
from now or 35 years from now, whenever he reaches the age of
65, he should receive $386 per month as his reward for
becoming 65. If he does not need it, should he receive that
money? If his income is below a household average or a certain
minimum income level, then I believe we all should get it should
we be so unfortunate, the two of us, that when we are 65 we need
that help.
These two questions are meant to be serious questions. I am
not playing games here. These are two issues that play hard on
my mind. I am grappling with them and I want to come up with
some solutions.
Would this member tell me whether there will be money there
for CPP, and does he feel an entitlement to his OAS payments
when he reaches 65?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member is
raising a very pertinent question on the state of finances in
Canada. We know we have a high deficit. We are facing
problems, but we are also facing challenges.
One has to keep in mind that the whole idea of the projet de loi
is to try to find solutions, to bring Canadians back into the
workforce, putting them back to work. Much has to be done in
terms of training and retraining. Much has to be done in terms of
trying to free up capital for small businesses.
Just the other day there was a report that was brought to the
attention of hon. members as a result of which we are going to be
asking banks to put up some money to try to encourage small
businesses and free enterprise and to go on to try to create jobs
throughout Canada. Much can be done with small employers.
Of course the Canada today is not that of the year of my birth,
1962. Things have changed. Things will keep on changing.
However, as long as we look into other venues in trying to
encourage investment, foreign investment, trying to free up
capital for small companies and corporations, I am sure that we
will surmount these obstacles and that there will be money
available for all Canadians in the years to come.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I had
overestimated the member's age. Now that I know his age I
would like to ask him again whether he feels there will be
sufficient moneys in CPP. The CPP question he did answer. He
feels there will be. On the OAS, the second question I asked,
does he feel an entitlement to receive whatever the monthly
payment may be in the future just because he reaches age 65
should he be above the minimum wage?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am a Liberal and as a Canadian as
well I should add that I believe in the concept of universality in
different programs that are given to all Canadians. That is one of
the hallmarks of this federation, that we recognize the fact that
all Canadians should be treated equally.
However, trying to answer a hypothetical question as posed by
the Reform Party would be like asking one of my predecessors
elected in 1962 whether he foresees the election of the Reform
Party and the Bloc Quebecois 32 years down the road. It is very
difficult to make those kinds of assumptions that moneys will
not be there.
The economy is evolving and changes are taking place. Of
course, our government is taking charge of our finances. The
Minister of Finance is doing a commendable job. We have to
keep in mind that also our Minister of Human Resources
Development wants to consult Canadians. That is one of the
reasons why we are out there asking Canadians to put something
into the system.
We want to consult them and I am sure we are going to get all
kinds of proposals and solutions outside this Parliament which
we do not regrettably receive from the opposition benches.
(1135 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to rise and address this bill, but I also wish to
address the larger debate that is going on across the country and
really the one that has been going on this morning and that is
with respect to the social program review that is currently under
way.
To have a good understanding of the social program review I
think it is very important that we go back and look at the genesis
of this idea and the genesis of the debate. Probably the first thing
we should do is point out that during the last election campaign
the Liberals across the way did not even mention social program
reform as an issue. It was as though it did not exist.
There was an interesting article in the Ottawa Citizen from
October 14:
During the election, then Prime Minister Kim Campbell stepped on a land
mine by declaring a campaign was the ``worst possible time'' to discuss social
policy reform. Jean Chrétien criticized her heavily and tiptoed around the same
land mine with the following assurance: ``I say that the programs are there and
they will remain the same-''.
6956
That was a year ago. That is the type of double talk that the
Prime Minister used to accuse the Conservatives of using.
The article goes on, quoting the Prime Minister:
``The plan of the party is clear. The social safety net that we have in Canada will
remain.''
The Liberal's election bible, the red book, made no reference to a major review
of social programs or even whether one might be necessary.
I would like to contrast that with how the Reform Party
addressed this issue which was to address it head on,
recognizing that fiscal problems in this country are directly
linked to social policy because social programs eat up almost
$80 billion a year and we cannot tackle fiscal problems without
making some cuts in social programs.
However, I point out that the approach we took was to start
cutting at the top first before we got to social programs. We said
that Canadians demand leadership by example. They want to see
cuts to the cost of Parliament. They want to see MPs' pensions
done away with in the current form. They are concerned with
overlap between not only federal and provincial government but
also between different departments within the federal
government. They want to see subsidies to business and special
interest groups trimmed. We would then take a look at social
programs in conjunction with the people of Canada.
What we found out in the days and months leading up to the
election was that people did believe that there had to be cuts
made there in order to achieve a balanced budget which even
now the finance minister is beginning to recognize in this
country. Hopefully it is not too late.
What we said is that people place a very high priority on
maintaining spending for health care in this country and we
agreed. We said that health care spending should be maintained.
However, we should respect the authority of the provinces and
their jurisdiction under the Constitution to have control over
health care.
The other thing that people told us was very important to them
was maintaining funding for post-secondary education. We
proposed various ideas to make that even more effective but
maintain the funding.
Some of the other areas where people felt there could be some
cuts and changes made were unemployment insurance; a
proposal to make unemployment insurance a true insurance
program based on the idea that employers and employees who
fund the program, who put the money in, should have control
over it. In other words, we were proposing to empower
individuals to have control over their own lives and create the
type of insurance system that would be truly responsive to their
needs. They would set the eligibility requirements, the
premiums and the benefits. That I will refer to in a little more
detail further down the road.
Let us fast forward now to the throne speech of January of
1994, to the budget and to the announcement that there would be
a social program review. I think it was January 31 if memory
serves. The hon. member from across the way is nodding his
head.
(1140 )
On that day it was announced that there would be a social
program review and that there would be a final report to the
House with recommendations and, I believe, legislation this
fall. That has now gone way off track but we will get into that in
a moment.
Let us go back to what the budget speech and budget
documents were saying about the social program review. On the
issue of social security reform, I quote from one of the
documents: ``The standing committee will seek the views of
Canadians on issues and objectives until April. The minister
will then table a federal action plan and the standing committee
will conduct public hearings on it until September and report in
October. As well, federal-provincial territorial activities will
take place during this period. The government will table reform
legislation in the fall''.
It also addressed how it would tackle some of the other social
policy areas that are not actually in the social security review
right now, things like health care, old age security and Canada
pension plan.
For some reason these were not included in a package together
and I find that odd because they are inextricably linked and I
think we will see if we look at the current green paper that there
are contradictions perhaps or at least we are putting the cart
before the horse in some cases. For instance, in the green paper
there is a reference to unemployed people using RRSPs so that
they can get themselves through a period of unemployment.
On the other hand we have not even addressed the issue of
Canada's old age security and Canada pension plan yet and what
is going to happen with that. Meanwhile the government is
floating trial balloons on RRSP taxation and things like that.
That is well ahead of any paper that is coming down on the future
Canada pension plan and old age security.
Right from the get go the government made a grave error
when it did not look at these different areas together.
The idea of the social program reform was to find out what
kind of ideas there were out there so we could do two things,
make social programs more efficient and save some money.
The government denied that was really the case initially. It
wanted to leave us with the impression that this was really an
effort to make things more efficient and help people get off
unemployment and that kind of thing. Running through this was
a growing awareness, certainly from the finance minister if not
from the rest of the cabinet, that cuts were going to have to come
6957
in the next federal budget and that we could not go on spending
as much money as we have been spending in this country.
Once the social program review was launched there were
delays. There were problems right off the bat. There were
patronage appointments made to the task force, people being
paid big per diems. More delays came along. The thing
floundered.
People really wanted to see the social program review
succeed. Canadians have been talking about the need for social
program review for 10, 12, 15 years and they want this
government to succeed. They want it to do well because they
know that their interests are at stake. They grew concerned and I
would argue that those concerns continue to grow today.
Not only was this program review put on hold continually
much to the chagrin of Canadians, but on the eve of the release
of the long awaited green paper there was a revelation in the
Toronto Star that the social program reform was going to
include big cuts, $7.5 billion worth, even though the
government had given Canadians the impression that they would
be consulted in this before any types of cuts were actually
considered.
On the other hand, I am certain there was a printing mistake.
When the green paper was released there were no figures at all in
it. In other words, Canadians were being asked to choose among
all these different programs without knowing how much they
would cost and what the costs of the various alternatives were.
Obviously that was a mistake, a printing mistake I am certain,
because no government would ever put forward a list of
proposals without having something so critical in it as the cost
of the actual programs.
(1145 )
Every day Canadians make decisions on all kinds of issues.
Chief among them I can guarantee is how much they cost,
because they know they have to live within their means.
Somehow this escapes the government.
Also missing from the various options were many of the
options put before the government during the period that led up
to the actual presentation of the document in the House. I sat in
on some of the HRD meetings and heard some of the
presentations that were given. I remember sitting in a committee
meeting suggesting that the studies and inquiries from past royal
commissions should become part of the official body of
information that the government refers to when it is considering
the options.
I mentioned specifically the Forget commission report. It
talked for instance about unemployment insurance and
returning it to the employers and the employees, the people who
fund it. That was rejected by the committee because the Liberal
majority voted against it for reasons that escape me. There were
members who spoke in favour of it. When the whip was cracked
they all voted against the proposal. I invite the hon.
parliamentary secretary to review the record.
Not all of the various options are in the paper. That is
unfortunate because Canadians should have a chance to look at
some of the other options that were put before the committee.
Initially this document was put forward as an action plan.
That was the wording of the motion. It said-I think on January
31-that the government would be tabling an action plan in the
days and weeks to come. Somehow over the course of the last
several months the action plan became watered down and
diluted to the point where it became a discussion paper.
In other words the minister who has the power to call to heel
armies of bureaucrats and all kinds of minions to gather all the
wisdom in the country about social policy reform, after all that
time, money and the thousands of hours that were spent on it,
brought forward a little green pamphlet with scarcely any action
at all or any call for action, but merely a few of the options of the
many that were discussed. That was a real shame.
We are now in a situation in which other groups around the
country have come forward and said: ``We have some ideas that
the government for some reason did not want to consider''.
I point to the Kierans-Robson report from the C.D. Howe
Institute in which not only did they come out with options, but
they came out with costs. They said: ``We will tell you how
much money we are going to cut from some of these areas''.
These are not what I am suggesting, but they should be in the
debate. On the topic of unemployment insurance they suggest
that unemployment insurance should be converted into true
insurance; there should be a proposal to eliminate regional
differences in qualifying periods and benefits and we should
eliminate all regional and non-insurance components. The
savings from that would be $5.5 billion. They were not ashamed
to suggest there would be some savings there.
Under the Canada assistance plan they suggested that we
eliminate and divert $2.5 billion to a new child tax credit to low
income households. The total savings on that would be $4.9
billion.
They talked about health care, which is something the
government has been reluctant to discuss, or at least they are
having trouble getting the provinces to come to the table. At this
very moment the Prime Minister is delivering a speech to an
empty assembly of people called for the health care forum. Not
only were the health care ministers from across the country
invited and did not show up, but the premiers were invited by the
Prime Minister himself. They refused to come for two reasons:
first, they know that under the Constitution this is their
jurisdiction; second, they resent that although they are the
senior partners in this arrangement and they pay the lion's share
of the cost for health care-almost double what the federal
government pays-the federal government is attempting to set
the agenda. It has made a grave error in this. There are other
areas including social program reform, GST reform and
interprovincial trade barriers where it has made the same errors.
6958
(1150)
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): They would not
even let them co-chair the proceedings.
Mr. Solberg: The government would not even let them
co-chair the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend points
out.
Suffice it to say there are many problems with the green paper.
It has been roundly criticized by the media, by the provinces,
and by the many special interest groups that were funded by the
government to come and appear before them but by Canadians
themselves.
Reform's zero-three program really led the way. Lately we
have had proposals from Tom Courchene who actually appeared
before the committee. The hon. member from Winnipeg across
the way was there when he appeared. He made an excellent
presentation. I guess he did not find any of his proposals in the
green paper so he felt it was necessary to bring out his own. It is
now in the arena of public debate. Hopefully the government
will see fit to include it in its area of debate as well and will
consider some of Mr. Courchene's ideas.
The government has another problem. We are rapidly
approaching the end of 1994. It has delayed again the time when
it will call for the reporting deadline on this issue to February 6,
1995. We have moved from getting this into legislation this fall.
Possibly when we consider the time it takes to draft legislation
and for it to pass through various readings in the House and
committee, it is quite conceivable that it will be well into 1996
before it actually becomes legislation, if that is what the
government decides to do.
It will probably be a year, perhaps a year and a half, before the
next election if the government holds an election within four
years. That concerns me. It is a well known fact that
governments very often fail at the last moment, at the critical
point, when they are faced with going before the electorate,
particularly when they are talking about making deep cuts to
something that Canadians value like social programs.
I am concerned about that. This issue is inextricably
intertwined with the whole issue of fiscal responsibility and the
huge problems we face because of overspending by this Liberal
government and the Conservative governments that went
before.
We have a deficit of $40 billion. We have a debt approaching
$535 billion. Soon international lenders are going to get fed up.
They are going to say that they have had enough and want to find
a place where their investment will be safe.
I am concerned the government across the way has not
realized that. It does not understand the urgency. While the
finance minister may realize it, I think the Prime Minister has
failed to grasp it, as has the human resources development
minister.
I urge the government to come to grips with the seriousness of
the situation, to take another look at its social program reform
and to move ahead with serious cuts in the very near future for
the sake of all Canadians.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I paid attention to the hon. member's speech.
I thought we were debating the redesign of the ISP. I want to
ask the hon. member if he has any opinions on some concrete
examples that would improve services for seniors because this is
what the bill is about.
For example, it will only take half a day to process a simple
OAS application which now takes around seven days to do.
Processing time for an application for Canada pension plan
benefits will drop from 13 days to one day. Telephone service
will be improved so that 97 per cent of all telephone calls will
get answered. Today only about 50 per cent get answered.
Seniors will be able to make changes to information such as
change of address over the telephone using a touch tone system.
For clients who prefer personal service or who do not have a
touch tone phone, staff will be available to answer their
questions quickly.
(1155)
These are real, positive changes that have an impact on the
lives of seniors on an every day basis. The hon. member should
be addressing issues that we deal with in this bill. However he
has taken the opportunity to expand and talk about the social
security review. The reality is that the government has been the
first one in a long time that has had the courage to face up to
some very difficult challenges and choices we have to make as a
nation.
Thirteen per cent of the people in Canada are unemployed for
a year or longer. Long term unemployment has increased three
times since 1976. When 40 per cent of these people are faced
with structural unemployment and 30 per cent of Canadians
have problems with literacy and numeracy skills, one has to
admit we have to move toward building a better and more
efficient social security system that; first, helps Canadians get
jobs and keep jobs; second, would help the most vulnerable and;
third, is sustainable.
6959
Another flaw in the speech delivered by the hon. member
deals with the red book. I do not expect the hon. member to
read the red book, among other books which he has not read.
If he was to read the red book very carefully he will find these
references. I want to cite them to the hon. member because I
know he will be engaged in the social security debate. I am sure
he does not want to give misinformation to Canadians.
If the hon. member would read page 16 he will find the red
book commitment:
A Liberal government will adopt a series of measures to put Canadians back to
work and foster economic growth.
Page 21:
It is our goal to help people on social assistance who are able to work, to move
from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of Canada.
Page 22:
A Liberal government will work with all the provinces to use established
funding mechanisms such as CAP in more innovative ways in order to move from
passive to active support of people in need.
Other pages deal with issues we are dealing with in the social
security review. It seems to me that the hon. member must take
the time to read the red book, to read the green book, and in a
very honest way also tell Canadians where the Reform Party is
going to cut $15 billion.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary
secretary for his series of questions. He has touched on a number
of issues and on this bill in particular. I commend the
government if it is trying to improve services. Obviously we
have to do that.
However, as the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out it
is kind of like polishing the chrome when the transmission is
going. The big issue before the country today is social program
reform. It is one of the huge issues. Let us not debate whether
answering the phone sooner is a good thing. Of course it is. We
all know that answering the phone and providing faster service
for seniors is important. We understand that.
By pulling out vague references to discussion about social
program reform or about minor aspects of social program
reform, it does not follow that the government made any kind of
commitment in the red book to deal with this problem in a
serious way.
The government downplayed the whole issue during the
election campaign. It downplayed the seriousness of the debt
situation to the point where a year after it came into power it is
just now beginning to realize how seriously we are in debt in this
country. Not because it wants to but because international
investors have told them: ``Get your act together or we are going
to start to move our money out of the country''. It is that simple.
It is not because it somehow saw this ahead of time and put
together a big task force and went to Canadians.
With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, if he had
referred to our zero and three plan, of which we distributed
millions of copies during the election campaign, he would know
we talked about our changes to social program reform. They are
on the public record. In fact this spring we gave the finance
minister a list of $20 billion in proposed cuts for the government
to use in its efforts to get the deficit and debt under control. I
offer that to the parliamentary secretary for him to look at.
(1200)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, which
relates more to the human aspect of this bill.
When reading the amendment we proposed, one realizes that
the bill really does little to protect those it covers against
possible undue solicitation. I refer, for example, to the fact that
the person giving unauthorized sources access to a beneficiary's
personal information, for commercial purposes, telemarketing
or whatever, would not be liable to prosecution under the
Criminal Code. This would open up quite a window of
opportunity to those wanting to take advantage of clients who
might be more vulnerable to such an approach.
Does the hon. member not fear that, if we adopt this bill, we
might create another situation like the one we now face under
the Unemployment Insurance Act, concerning the entitlement of
related people working for the same employer, for example, and
where there is something akin to harassment from Revenue
Canada? In these cases, studies and inquiries might be more
justified, but in others, they may not be. One thing is certain,
this is time-consuming.
Does the hon. member not think that this bill, as presented,
might subject the elderly to the difficult situation that UI
recipients are now facing? Second, as I said, will we not be
subjecting the elderly to a series of solicitations, due to the fact
that some people could have a financial interest in
communicating the lists of those concerned by the legislation?
[English]
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I
missed the first part of what he was saying but he spoke largely
on the aspect of confidentiality. There is no question in my mind
that is something we have to be careful of.
Obviously this country has a long history of trying to keep
records of a personal nature confidential. I point to the problems
that can occur when those things get out. In fact if memory
serves, in Ontario a provincial minister resigned over that issue.
There is no question that is something we have to be cautious of.
It is an area I think the hon. member knows more about than I do.
Having said those things I will leave it at that.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to speak to the specific issue before the House
which
6960
is Bill C-54. For that reason I want to take the opportunity to
summarize the amendments and the purpose for them.
As we have heard from some during the course of this debate,
these amendments do not reflect major policy initiatives.
Instead, this bill deals with the improvements required to the
affected acts to improve client service and administration.
Undoubtedly, the most significant of the changes is the
amendment to the Old Age Security Act which will grant the
Minister of Human Resources Development the discretion to
waive renewable applications for guaranteed income
supplements and spouse's allowance recipients. This is an
obvious example of improved client service. It will make it
possible in the future to reduce the paper burden for many
seniors and reduce the number of seniors who do not receive
their income supplements on time because they are late filing
their renewal applications.
Next, are the changes to the old age security appeal system
which will allow for a more efficient and effective appeal for
those clients who are dissatisfied with a decision under the OAS
Act. This new system should result in fewer decisions having to
be appealed to the courts. It should allow clients to see a
resolution to their appeals more quickly.
Another important group of amendments deal with expanded
information disclosure. These amendments which affect all four
acts being amended by Bill C-54 will improve co-ordination
and administration of programs that are, out of necessity,
becoming more interdependent.
(1205)
For the first time as well important client databanks could be
used to assist in investigations, prosecutions and extradition
activities in relation to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Because of the restrictions on the circumstances under which
such information can be released clients can still be assured of
the government's commitment to protect personal information.
Also included in this group is an amendment which allows the
Correctional Services Canada to have limited information about
OAS and CPP benefits that are paid to inmates in federal
institutions.
The next amendment I would like to address is the
reintroduction of 12 months of retroactive benefits for those
Canada pension plan retirement beneficiaries who apply after
their 65th birthday. This will equal the retroactivity period for
the old age security benefits as well as for other benefits
provided under the Canada pension plan.
Also of significance to the fair and equitable treatment of
pensioners is the amendment which would give the minister
discretion to waive old age security overpayments that are
caused by errors on the part of the department. This amendment
mirrors a provision currently in the Canada pension plan and
ensures that clients are not financially responsible for errors
over which they have no control.
That summarizes what in my mind are the major amendments
included in Bill C-54, but there are also a number of minor
amendments of which I want to make mention. In some of these
more minor amendments we really see the subtle changes that
can be made to improve the way we do business in government.
These improvements translate to better service to those persons
affected by government legislation, in other words, to all of us at
some point during our lives.
For instance, any employee in the Department of Human
Resources Development involved in the administration of one of
the acts will be able to take statutory declarations and
affirmations not only for these programs but for other federal
and provincial departments. This will save clients from having
to go to more than one office for these services as now happens.
In addition, the OAS and CPP acts will allow for
municipalities to be reimbursed directly for assistance that they
provide to a benefit applicant while their application is being
adjudicated. Currently the acts only permit for reimbursement
to a provincial government which means that the province then
has to reimburse the municipality. Removing the middle man, if
that is what you want to refer to it as being, will certainly
streamline administration.
Old age security and Canada pension plan clients will also be
well served by an amendment to the administrative error and
erroneous advice provisions. It would no longer be necessary for
the client to complain in writing before the minister could take
corrective action in cases where the department has made an
error. Without this amendment the department cannot legally
take corrective action when it finds that a client has lost benefit
entitlement because of an error made by an employee. The client
is required to contact the minister in writing before such errors
are corrected.
This provision was not fair nor did it recognize the
complexity of the legislation. Clients should not be expected to
always realize when an error has been made. Now both sides,
either the client or the administration, can be the catalyst which
prompts corrective action.
Under the Old Age Security Act benefit overpayments can
only be collected if the overpayment occurred in the last two
years. This time limit is being removed to ensure that clients are
not receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. It is only
reasonable that a debt should not be waived just because of a
certain length of time has past.
As we all know, the government as a whole must ensure that
scarce financial resources go to those individuals for whom they
are intended. There will be those individuals for whom
repayment would cause hardship. This is already taken care of
through a provision in the Old Age Security Act which gives the
minister the authority to waive overpayments in certain circum-
6961
stances. Only those individuals who can repay benefits are asked
to do so.
I certainly have not covered all of the amendments. However I
have summarized those that I feel will have the most significant
impact on our pensioner population. I feel that this bill is a step
in the right direction and that clients are the beneficiaries of the
changes. As I am sure we are all aware, there is more that we can
do and will be done as the efforts to improve the machinery of
government move along.
I look forward to seeing further improvements in the not too
distant future.
(1210 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments
on Bill C-54 which is before us today. He is talking about very
technical but really minor housekeeping items to the social
programs.
I am not sure if we can tackle this minor housekeeping with a
whiskbroom. A farmer once said that after the cows have been in
the barn for a long time, you cannot use a whiskbroom;
sometimes you need to use a front end loader to clean up the
mess. Maybe that is what we should be looking at today.
The member talked about old age security. The Reform Party
has put forward proposals on several occasions during the
election campaign and in this House regarding old age security.
It has made some recommendations and shown actual savings in
the area of $3.5 billion, keeping in mind that we feel very
strongly that the program should be directed to those most in
need in this country.
Can the member give us a specific example of what he thinks
would be a way we could actually show some savings with that
program?
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested that a
member from the west of Canada would talk about
whiskbrooms. I guess he knows more about farming.
I am also quite surprised with the observations made by the
speaker in the sense that he feels that in some ways this is a trite
and insignificant piece of legislation. I am surprised this would
come from a member opposite who in the party sense is always
suggesting they are the ones who can discern in their wisdom
what people are thinking.
I can safely tell the member opposite that despite what he
feels about the triteness of this if he would follow what happens
in his constituency office he would find that this delivery of
service is a major factor. It is of great concern to seniors. To
suggest that in some way dealing with this problem is using a
whiskbroom when he would use some other farm device I find
quite surprising.
I would ask him to consult with the seniors with whom he
deals. I would ask him perhaps to have one of these consultation
processes with the seniors whom he serves. I think he would find
they would welcome these changes.
In dealing with government bureaucracy, and we all
acknowledge there is a certain element, a continuum of
bureaucracy, I think he will find that his constituent base will
welcome these types of changes. The seniors are going to
welcome the streamlining and flattening of the process
somewhat and empowering those who make the decisions and
collapsing the vertical portion of the system.
We are talking about the delivery of service to primarily a
senior base. In the past, the have found the operation of the
system to be very frustrating.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for not
answering my question.
The interesting thing is that my riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, has one of the highest
percentages of senior citizens in the country. The hon. member
should study that and pay attention to when the west speaks,
because we do know what we are speaking of.
The hon. member spoke of consultation. No other party in this
House has spent more time in consulting with the people of
Canada than the Reform Party of Canada. Recently I held a
series of townhall meetings in my riding. These are not just
townhall meetings where we go out and speak; they are
interactive workshops where people participate back and forth.
In these series of meetings we identified the deficit and debt as
the number one enemy in Canada right now.
(1215)
We are looking at a social program system that spends some
$80 billion a year. We are looking at interest payments of $40
billion to $44 billion a year. That is what is robbing the social
safety net. I support some of the items in the bill
wholeheartedly. I can say that we have to improve on the
administration but I want specifics.
I will ask the member the same question. What can he and his
party suggest that will save some money on social programs,
specifically old age security?
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the
hon. member is on the cutting edge of consultation. Once again
it would appear that members opposite are the only ones who in
some way, as I stated earlier, are able to discern what the public
wishes.
He stated that during recent townhall meetings in the west the
number one issue was the debt and the deficit. At the same time
6962
members opposite stated that during the election. This party on
this side of the House dealt with that during the election and the
finance minister is dealing with it now.
In terms of identifying issues I do not think members on that
side of the House are in some way on the cutting edge of
knowing what Canadians are thinking. I would agree to an extent
that they may know what is going on in certain very limited
regional areas of the west, but I do not think that in the
mainstream of Canada they are able to discern what is on the
minds of Canadians.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that not only are
there Reform Party of Canada members in western Canada.
They are from coast to coast and we do have townhall meetings
right across the country.
Can the member just give me one area? I think all of Canada
should be able to come to any member of Parliament and ask for
one area where money can be saved in a specific program.
For the third time I would like to ask the same question. Will
the member identify one area in old age security where we can
have substantive savings, and will he tell us the figure we would
save?
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, it is a hallmark of members
opposite that they do not like to speak about the legislation
before the House. They would rather speak about their grand
scheme of Canada and their identification through their unique
patented processes called townhall meetings.
As a result of all the townhall meetings they are apparently
having in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and
other provinces, why does the member opposite not tell us the
results of what Canadians are telling them in terms of what the
number one issues of the day are?
Mr. Silye: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Perhaps the member
would like to speak to a point of order.
Mr. Silye: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According
to the Standing Orders I understand that when members ask
ministers of the crown questions in question period they do not
necessarily have to answer. In debate and under questions and
comments do members of Parliament have to answer?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Clearly the Speaker does
not deem the matter to be a point of order; it is more a matter of
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member for Richmond-Wolfe, I am pleased to
participate in this debate on Bill C-54, which concerns an
extremely important group of people in our society, to whom we
owe a great deal.
A society which respects its seniors is one which respects its
past as well as the wisdom and the maturity that come with it.
(1220)
Such a society tends to create a healthy environment for
future generations and it is the Bloc Quebecois' goal to promote
and build such a society, and not to destroy a country, as Liberal
and Reform Party members like to think.
In Canada, 21 per cent of seniors, that is 625,000 of them, live
in poverty. The proportion of old people with low incomes is
always greater than for the population as a whole. In 1992, the
average income of families made up of seniors was 30 per cent
lower than that of other families. Between 1982 and 1992, the
average income of seniors increased by 6 per cent, compared to
10 per cent for the rest of Canadians. In 1992, the average
income of seniors living alone was $18,434, while that of other
persons in the same situation was $25,000.
This reality of the Canadian society certainly does not support
claims by the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada is a good
place to live.
It must be recognized that Bill C-54, which amends the Old
Age Security Act and in particular the Canada Pension Plan,
includes several measures which will have a positive impact on
programs for seniors. However, this legislation is clearly
inadequate when it comes to alleviating the problem of poverty
among our seniors. On the contrary, some provisions of the bill
reflect a strong desire by the government to increase social
controls and to pinch pennies at the expense of the poorest
Quebecers and Canadians.
Bill C-54 contains some positive provisions, like the ones
making the application process for Old Age Security benefits,
the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan
more flexible. For example, spouse's allowances will now be
automatically converted into Old Age Security benefits when
recipients turn 65 years of age.
This bill also includes some more provisions that could
improve the lot of the elderly in both our societies. For instance,
guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowances will
now be paid to the recipients even though their applications
were late. Individuals will now be able to cancel assignments of
pensions at any time, assignments meaning the transfer of all or
part of a pension to a spouse.
Recipients will also be able to ask the federal government to
directly reimburse the various provincial benefits they have
received while they wait to become eligible for Old Age
Security or Canada Pension Plan benefits. To exempt benefits
from seizure and to let older people who want to appeal
decisions to do so by making requests for reconsideration
6963
instead of appeals are two more examples of measures aimed at
improving the lot of the elderly in both our societies.
However, with Bill C-54, the federal government is
proposing a piece of legislation that has absolutely no scope and
that reflects its unwillingness to reduce poverty among the
elderly. True to form, the government has deliberately chosen to
increase its control over the poor people, while maintaining the
parameters for an artificially rich society, which is, in fact,
debt-ridden and on the verge of bankruptcy.
All of our social programs have been called into question
because of the deficit, spending controls and especially the
failure of the government to act. In the last budget, the measures
concerning contributions to the unemployment insurance fund
and the proposed changes to the age credits for the elderly
clearly indicated the direction in which the government is going.
(1225)
When public authorities attack the most destitute and
vulnerable among us, as does the Liberal Party of Canada, it is
the sign of a society with no plan for the future, a society which
protects the rich.
Let me remind you briefly that all taxpayers who are 65 or
over may claim a tax credit equivalent to 17 per cent of $3,482 at
the federal level and to 20 per cent of $2,200 in Quebec. The
change made in the last budget aims at reducing this credit for
senior citizens with a net revenue exceeding $25,921 and at
eliminating it completely for those with a net revenue of over
$49,100.
We have to wonder if the government considers that a senior
citizen with a $25,000 revenue is rich. Obviously, the meagre
efforts to reduce spending are made on the back of the most
destitute members of the middle class. In this way, Bill C-54 is
the logical result of the first Liberal budget and goes well with
the reform of the social programs proposed by the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
In reality, Bill C-54 is part of the same budgetary reduction
process as the social program reform. Thus, public pensions are
as much under scrutiny as unemployment insurance and
manpower training. Similarities between the first budget, the
social program reform and Bill C-54 can be seen mostly in two
aspects of this bill: first, the savings measures considered by the
government, and, second, the greater number of organizations
given access to personal information on senior citizens, which
means an extension of the control measures.
As for the savings measures, the government says that the
retroactive period needs to be reduced from five to one year to
be in line with Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan. It
should be noted, however, that every time we pay heed to this
need, the result is always a downward adjustment. All things
considered, the government is again tightening program
requirements for the elderly.
Also, the government will have to explain what it thinks is
wrong with the current clauses on Old Age Security
overpayment. It is worth mentioning that, under the present
legislation, the government can go back at most two years. By
eliminating that limit to the retroactive period, the government
would collect $2 million more. Since pensioners enjoy some
protection from possible mistakes by government officials, the
minister should indicate from whose pockets that money will
come from.
Furthermore, I submit that it is indecent for this government
to propose measures for deferring benefit payments when there
is an appeal. The implementation of such measures could put
many pensioners in a very precarious situation. The proposed
measures would not have a major impact on most pensioners,
but they nonetheless reflect the direction taken by the
government since its election, namely cutting social programs,
despite the commitment it made during the election campaign
not to attack these programs.
The proliferation of control agencies, which was mentioned
earlier, is another aspect of the bill to which the Bloc Quebecois
is opposed. Governments are interfering more and more in
everyone's private life and they accumulate ever more detailed
information on each one of us. As we know, there is currently a
public debate on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
New facts are being uncovered. We know since the 1970s that
the inquiries on government management are made beyond
public scrutiny and kept secret.
Although the gathering of some data is often necessary to
process certain files, the government should always justify its
new intrusions into people's private lives.
(1230)
The government has not yet demonstrated the need to increase
the release of information regarding seniors in both our
societies. The Bloc Quebecois will not support this provision of
the bill unless the government demonstrates this need.
Moreover, we think that the provisions regarding the penalties
for illegal release of information are clearly inadequate. The
clients of social programs must be protected in a very effective
manner against any abuse that could happen in the passing on of
information. The legislation should provide for special
penalties for this kind of offence.
For these reasons, I will support the amendment proposed by
my colleague, the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, which
reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word
``That'' and substituting the following:
6964
``this House declines to give second reading reading to Bill C-54, An Act to amend
the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special
Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it does not provide a
penalty under the Criminal Code for the disclosure of personal information
concerning beneficiaries to persons who are not legally authorized to such
information pursuant to Access to Privileged Information.''
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would, in fact, have a few
questions to ask the hon. member. He mentioned the average
amounts paid to senior citizens as compared to the national
average in Canada. When he mentions $25,000 and $19,000 are
these gross or net amounts?
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine did not listen carefully to
my speech, because I made it very clear that these figures were
for net incomes.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, if that is their net income, their
gross income must be around $35,000 or nearly $40,000. The
average income of a family of four is almost $45,000. Therefore,
those individual incomes are way above the national average for
a family of four.
At any rate, I want to make one thing one thing clear. This
government has no intention of tampering with old age security.
All Liberal governments, and especially the present one, have
always preserved the vested rights of senior citizens, and more
particularly those received or accrued by people who have been
contributing for at least 50 years. Through their contribution,
they shaped Canada as we know it today. Everybody recognizes,
as well as I do, the great efforts made by our senior citizens.
Believe me, we are the first ones to look after the have-nots.
Once again, I hope the hon. member of the opposition
understands there are 800,000 people on welfare or
unemployment insurance in Quebec. All kinds of suggestions
are being made to meet the needs of Quebecers and make our
economy more efficient and create more jobs. But all I hear in
this House is a condemnation of the government of Canada. I
will send the ball back in his court and ask him, for example,
what the experts did at the regional level.
In this matter, I listened to Quebec's Minister of Health who
still has not made a decision on the problem of medical
specialists who are needed in outlying regions. Pensioners come
and see me to say that they need specialists. We have hospitals in
Maria, Chandler and Gaspé. But no. Quebec's civil servants
prefer to send them to Rimouski, Quebec City or even Montreal.
Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec does not often
respond to my constituents' real requests for social services and
health services. Of course, this is provincial jurisdiction, but I
say that it is wrong to blame the federal government, Mr.
Speaker. Indeed, what do we hear very often? That it is the
Government of Quebec, the member's head office, which does
not meet Quebecers' real expectations and needs.
(1235)
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
member has a short memory. I think he cannot see past the tip of
his nose. I must remind the member that the Parti Quebecois
government was elected only a few weeks ago and that, for the
past ten years, it was his Liberal friends in Quebec who had been
managing the health care system.
I would like to remind the member, who does not seem to be
too firmly grounded in reality, that money you have to live on is
not what appears on paper but what you have left in your hand.
With an income of $25,000, I say that you live in poverty. If the
member looked at the government's statistics, he would know
that with $25,000 you are in dire straits. Many times, when you
are paying for your groceries, you wonder if you should not put
an item back on the shelf because you do not know if you are
going to have enough money to pay the bill.
The money in your hand is a far cry from what appears on
paper. When the amount on paper is $50,000 and you are left
with only $25,000, it is because the government took the other
$25,000. This is what it means.
Does the member realize that, while there are 800,000
unemployed people, his government has just taken some
extraordinary steps cutting social programs and training, and
that the Minister of Human Resources Development has just
announced an astounding proposal asking students to get deeper
into debt, under the pretence of making it easier to have access
to training? What the minister is telling university and
post-secondary students is this: ``We are giving you better
access to funding from banks and credit unions so that you can
get deeper into debt and we are cutting grants and bursaries''.
We know very well that to get a bachelor's degree now, a student
piles up a debt of about $9,000 or $10,000.
A student who goes as far as the doctoral or post-doctoral
level leaves university $40,000 in debt. That is what your
government is doing!
That government is doing nothing to stimulate employment.
They invested in infrastructure, which is not a bad program, as
everyone admits, except where do young people get jobs in the
infrastructure program? Where do women find work in the
infrastructure projects? Nothing, zero.
The Prime Minister said that when we see trucks rolling in the
streets, the economic recovery will be under way. That is a very
short-sighted way to look at economic recovery and it is
especially short-sighted to think that you will put people back to
work just by digging in the streets. It is an old, well-known
model that works in some ways, but they did not think of
training. They did not think of investing in young entrepreneurs.
What the government is doing is the opposite of what it
6965
announced during the election campaign. It was elected with
NDP-style advertisements that said, ``We will protect social
programs. We will create jobs''. It was elected with many
promises that are now completely rejected.
The finance minister's budget and all the reform proposals
clearly show us that they are doing the opposite and can only
think of cutting $15 billion from operating expenses in the
budget at the expense of all the poorest people, in order to
protect their friends, the richest people who back that regime.
I would conclude with this. If only this government were
honest enough to apply the red book, as they said in their
advertisements, every time they refer to it, we could at least be
working on the economic recovery in some ways, but they are
not doing that, on the contrary. They are acting to the detriment
of the very poor, women, young people, training, education.
Again I say to the hon. member: If you have $25,000 in your
pocket, you are poor in a society where everything costs more,
with taxes on food, medicine, the basic needs of families, rent,
etc. You may have $50,000 on paper, sir, but that is not what you
have in your pocket. Remember that!
(1240)
Mr. Gagnon: You are a liar!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The 10-minute question
and comment period has expired. Resuming debate. The hon.
member for Winnipeg South.
Order! The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe on a point of
order.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has just
called me ``a dirty liar''. I think it was very clear. What I am
saying concerns verifiable facts; I cannot accept this comment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I paid close attention to
what was said between members and I would ask the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to please
withdraw his comments to the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it appears to be a rather passionate
debate but it is still outside- First of all, I did not have the floor
and it was really a private discussion. I will, however, make
amends. True, I made such a comment but, unlike the hon.
member who steadfastly refused to apologize to the Prime
Minister of Canada, I at least have the honour of apologizing to
him. I hope that in the future he can benefit from his experience
with me in that when I make a mistake, I apologize. I would have
liked to hear the hon. member opposite say the same thing to the
Prime Minister of Canada the other day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The matter is closed. I
thank the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his co-operation. I
have no intention of reviving another matter that occurred one or
two weeks ago.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg South.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague in the House for his intervention. It sets a
model for the House that perhaps we should all think a bit about.
Despite the debate that has taken place over this last while in
the House what this bill purports to do is simply bring the
administration of the programs administered by the Department
of Human Resources Development into the 20th century. It is
simply an attempt to modernize the way we deliver services to
people, to use the advantages which computers and information
technology offer to us to allow us to better identify what services
we are providing to whom, to ensure that we do not provide
services to people who do not have entitlements to that service,
to make it easy to access information quickly and to make the
overall operations of government more efficient and more
effective.
The fact is that this has been a movement that has been taking
place in the private sector throughout this last decade. The fact
is many governments at all levels are moving in this direction
and it is about time the federal government caught up.
I commend the Minister of Human Resources Development
for being able, given all the things he is having to deal with, to
move forward with such an important initiative at this time.
I want to talk a bit about one aspect of it and to preface that I
want to remind members of a couple of things. People
historically are nervous about change. It was not that long ago
when telephone answering machines were introduced and
people used to complain all the time if they got a machine, they
do not want their phone answered by the machine, they do not
want to have to talk to a machine. Today when you phone
somebody, if they do not have a machine you are annoyed
because you cannot leave a message.
It was not that long ago we were concerned about electronic
banking machines. People do not want to deal with a machine,
they want to deal with a real person. I would ask most members
of the House to reflect on where they do their banking. I bet the
majority of them use their cards, go into the teller 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week because it is much more efficient, much more
effective and much better service.
6966
That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about
using those technologies to bring better, faster, more effective
service to people.
Because of these concerns about technology there has always
been a fear about if information is given to the government, how
will the government utilize that information. There have been,
and necessarily, strong prohibitions against the transfer of
information among government departments.
(1245 )
Between that time, when we first began to introduce these
programs and now, the House has enacted privacy legislation. It
has enacted all sorts of protections and our use of technology has
become much more efficient so that we know how to provide
secure access. If a bank can provide secure access to my money
24 hours, seven days a week and prevent somebody else from
getting at it then the government can provide secure access to
confidential information that it holds in its records.
The bill identifies certain kinds of information that will be
shared between legitimate users of the information within
government to provide more efficient, more effective and faster
service to citizens. When we talk about one-stop shopping,
when we talk about service to citizens, this is what we are
talking about.
I would like to concentrate on those provisions aimed at
improving information sharing between government
departments. The protection given to the information which old
age security pensioners, unemployment insurance claimants,
Canada pension plan recipients and children's special allowance
beneficiaries must provide has always been high. The reasons
for this are clear.
The Department of Human Resources Development is
required to collect personal information in order to determine if
an individual is eligible for a benefit and in what amount.
Should clients feel uncertain about the confidentiality of this
information, they might be reluctant to provide such
information. In such a case the department would find it almost
impossible to administer these programs.
Nevertheless there are situations in which the strict protection
afforded this information actually prevents the government
from giving its clients the best service possible. In some cases it
sets up artificial barriers which hamper the service or action
which the client is requesting. In other cases it prevents the
government from making use of technology which could save
the taxpayers of Canada money and avoid stressful
overpayments for beneficiaries.
There was a member opposite talking about what specific
savings would arise. This program will produce savings to
government in the delivery of government services.
I am sure that all members have had to respond to many
constituent queries concerning program and benefit
information, changes or the resolution of difficulties. In such
situations it is often unclear exactly what sort of information can
be shared. When this involves OAS, CPP, UI or CSA benefits,
MPs and their staff must contact the Department of Human
Resources Development to request information about their
constituent's particular case.
Some would argue that a constituent request for a member of
Parliament to intervene on his or her behalf constitutes
permission or authorization for the department to share
information with that MP about the individual. However, it is
not clear in law under which circumstances information can be
released to MPs.
Public servants must therefore weigh off the requirement to
protect client information against the need to provide proper
service. One of the amendments in the bill would eliminate any
uncertainty with respect to CPP, OAS and CSA legislation and
so permit public servants to provide client information to
members and their staffs acting on behalf of clients.
Another amendment would help departments provide better
service to common clients. Because of the age group of their
clients, the Departments of Human Resource Development and
Veteran Affairs have many clients in common. Furthermore, if
the circumstances under which a veteran qualifies for certain
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the
amount of benefits depends in part on what benefits he or she
receives from the old age security and the Canada pension plan.
To determine benefit eligibility, the Department of Veterans
Affairs requires information on that person's entitlement to
OAS and CPP benefits.
While the OAS act currently allows the department to share
some types of information, the CPP legislation does not. This
has resulted in substantial overpayments to some veterans who
have reported incorrect benefit amounts to the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Many of these overpayments are difficult or
even impossible to collect because of the hardship this would
cause low income veterans.
The amendment in the bill pertaining to the Old Age Security
Act would allow the Department of Human Resources
Development to provide information to veterans affairs on
common clients for the purposes of administering all acts
pertaining to veterans. The amendment to the CPP would allow
information sharing with veterans affairs for the first time and
on the same basis as OAS.
The effect of these amendments would be to minimize
overpayments to clients, eliminate the distress caused to
veterans in overpayment situations and bring consistency and
comprehensiveness to the OAS and CPP provisions.
6967
Another amendment would enable the Department of Human
Resources Development to give better service to disabled
Canadians trying to re-enter the workforce.
(1250 )
Under current provisions of the Canada pension plan,
disabled contributors who are unable to work may qualify for a
CPP disability pension. The CPP administration is currently
evaluating a project which offers rehabilitation to those
disability pension recipients most likely to benefit from it.
These services would be provided by private rehabilitation
specialists. However, in order for these professionals to evaluate
the situation of disabled persons and the services he or she might
require to get back into the workforce, they need access to client
information. Current Canada pension plan legislation prevents
the Department of Human Resources Development from
providing this information directly to such professionals.
One of the amendments in the bill would enable the CPP
administration to provide this information directly, thus
reducing the present annoyance of the department having to give
the information to the client who in turn has to pass it on to the
rehabilitation specialist.
Two other amendments would allow certain information to be
released under specific circumstances to enable the Government
of Canada to proceed with two important initiatives. In one
initiative the Correctional Service Canada is embarking on a
program to charge federal inmates a portion of their income as
room and board.
One amendment in the bill would allow information on CPP
and OAS benefits paid to inmates to be transmitted to
Corrections Canada for inclusion with other income information
for assessing the room and board to be charged.
Another amendment would allow disclosure to the Minister of
Justice, the Attorney General for Canada and the commissioner
for the RCMP of OAS, CPP and UI client information in order to
assist activities undertaken in Canada to investigate, prosecute
and extradite persons suspected of war crimes and crimes
against humanity.
Finally, another amendment would enable the provision of
client information to Canada Post via computer tapes or other
electronic means to print benefit award and denial letters.
Should Canada Post be contracted to undertake this activity,
strict conditions would be placed on the types and circumstances
of this sharing.
Canada Post would be subject to government contractual
agreements. Canada Post would continue to be obliged to
protect the confidentiality of the mail and to abide by the
provisions of the Privacy Act. It is important to emphasize that
sharing information in these circumstances in no way lessens
the protection given to confidential client information.
Those authorized to have access to this type of information
would be bound by the legislation and any person releasing
information illegally would be guilty of an offence punishable
on summary conviction.
In conclusion, the amendments will be of great benefit both to
Canadians and the federal government departments serving
them. They will provide better service levels for Canadians and
eliminate unnecessary work and red tape in dealing with
government departments. They will eliminate much hardship
for clients by reducing the incidence of incorrect payments.
As well, they will provide savings to the Government of
Canada and in some cases result in additional revenues. Finally,
they will permit the federal government to further the goal of
justice in Canada.
For all of these reasons, I feel the House should support the
bill and get on with its passage as quickly as possible.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for
Winnipeg South. He is correct in pointing out that this is an
omnibus bill that covers a lot of territory as far as our social
programs are concerned. I agree with him on the idea that we are
in the 20th century.
I especially appreciate his comments regarding the
Department of Veterans Affairs. We must not put veterans in
distress when they have gone to war for this country and
especially when next year is the 50th anniversary of the end of
the second world war. That is very substantive in this bill.
I would like to try to flesh it out some more. We are all in this
place to try to come up with ideas to make the programs and bills
that are put before us better and more effective, more efficient.
We are all here with that common goal.
He talked about efficiency and how the programs will be more
effective, that this technology is a movement that is taking
place. I do not think anyone in the House would disagree that it
should be done.
The access to information is also something that I can feel
very comfortable in supporting with some assurances that it
does not go too far. He mentioned several areas. One he briefly
mentioned but did not go into too much detail with was the UIC
program. If we are to come up with ideas, we should talk about
some substantive ideas the member would bring forward that
would save the country some money in regard to UIC.
(1255)
The Reform Party of Canada has stated that this program
should be actuarially sound, that it should be a true insurance
program that would save the government some $5 billion in
delivering the program to its clientele. Whether the member
agrees or disagrees with that concept, I would like to hear from
him what his specific ideas are that could save the program and
save Canadians dollars.
6968
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to direct the member's
attention to a particular area. We all like to stand up and talk
about the grand ideas that will transform programs and save
billions of dollars, however impractical, inefficient or
incredible those ideas might be. What I am trying to talk about in
this bill is something that my mother used to say to me and I
suspect other mothers said to their children: ``If you look after
the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves''.
This is not about a massive restructuring of government
programs. This is about, in many little steps, doing the work of
government better, more efficiently, faster, giving better service
and at the same time, saving money. There are all sorts.
Computer programmers have come to government for the last 20
years and said: ``If the government will just build this system,
we will be able to deliver better service and save money''.
Unfortunately that has not always proved to be the case.
However, we have learned over time the techniques necessary
to do exactly that. If we look at what has happened in the private
sector: we have seen massive changes in management; a
flattening of management hierarchies; more direct delivery at
the service level and the use of expert systems.
Each one of the programs I mentioned here keeps a file on
people with information on their names, addresses, postal
codes, all of that identifying information. Why do we need to
have four or five such databases? Why not one? Think about that
between departments.
Canada Post was mentioned. Canada Post is building or is
near finishing a database that has the name and address of every
single Canadian in it. Why do we need to replicate that? Why
can we not take advantage through proper information sharing
of that information to save us money. Will this produce $5
billion savings? No, I do not think so. Will this flatten out the
need for new resources, provide better service and save money
along the way? Yes, it will.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments
on the question. I do not mean to stand here and offer grandiose
ideas to the people of Canada. We are trying to come up with
solutions to very complex problems. As we move very rapidly
on the train tracks, there is a brick wall straight ahead.
It does not matter how effective, how efficient and how far we
have advanced technologically with our systems if we do not
tackle this massive problem of deficit and debt. We are spending
some $44 billion dollars a year on interest alone on the money
we have borrowed. This cannot go on forever. We are going to
end up in a situation with very effective delivery services, but no
money to deliver to the people in need anyway.
I would like to ask the member again if he could give me one
substantive idea that we, as the House of Commons, could sink
our teeth into regarding social programs, in particular the UIC
program, that could save a substantial amount of money for the
people of Canada.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I am slightly bemused because I did
exactly that. I heard the Speaker has a written speech that he
uses asking for specific information from members, because he
asked the identical question of the member from my party who
spoke last time.
(1300)
I gave him a specific example. I can give him a number of
specific examples. I would refer him first to the budget
document from last February in which the Minister of Finance
detailed specific reductions in the Human Resources
Development portfolio. I can refer him to many speeches and
statements by the Minister of Human Resources Development
talking about a restructuring of the $38 billion social service
envelope. I can refer him to the framework document that the
Minister of Finance brought down earlier this week.
These are grand discussions, these are huge programs that
affect millions and millions of Canadians and I find it very
difficult to understand how any member could stand up and wipe
out the benefits for millions and millions of people without any
thought and discussion.
What we are proposing to do and what we are doing is taking a
very difficult debate to the people of this country and asking
them to participate in an exercise that is going to be painful for
all of us. We are not deciding that in this Chamber based on a few
throwaway comments from a few members.
I really find this debate right now very difficult when a
member stands up and so quickly and so easily asks to deprive
seniors of their pensions, or to deprive UI recipients of their
benefits. I find this intolerable.
I would like to see from that party some specific suggestions
that take into account the nature of this country. You cannot do
what this member just suggested with UI without bankrupting
some of the provinces. He should stop and think a bit before he
starts carrying that debate forward to the public.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not like the tone the member adopts in even
suggesting that I was wiping out benefits to people in need in
this country. That is not at all what I said. That is a total
misrepresentation of what I am saying here.
6969
Very quickly, all I am asking for are some substantive ideas.
This country has waited. We saw a social program action plan
that was supposed to be presented in April and now we are still
in the discussion stage.
I feel very strongly that what has happened here is that the
government spent all its time when it was were on this side of the
House discussing and criticizing but not coming up with a
substantive plan. Right now it finds itself in a quagmire and does
not know what to do. It is too busy looking at itself, as the
member says.
Let us give the Canadian people some credit. They have
watched this progress over months and months now and all that
is coming out are bills that skirt around the edges of the real
problem.
I would like to know substantively once again if this member
can give us a substantive and direct figure and an idea that will
help us save money in social programs today.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, let me give the member two. Let me
refer him to this bill, this bill which he throws away and says is
nothing. This bill is a major modernization and improvement of
services that will produce reductions in the cost of
administering programs. That is a fact-this bill.
You want to make savings in UI, you want to-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know this is a
place for vigorous debate but please direct your interventions
through the chair.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I am not
arguing with you. If the members opposite wish to contribute to
this debate and want to save the people of Canada money then let
us have a debate on getting people back to work, let us have a
debate on getting this economy going, let us have a debate on
getting people trained. I do not hear a single idea coming forth. I
have never heard the words `research and development', I have
never heard the word `investment' come from that side of the
House.
Let us have a debate about it. Let us get people back to work.
Let us get people off UI. Let us get people into high quality, high
paying jobs. Then we will see a difference.
(1305 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of this act is to improve service to clients, to allow for
more efficient program administration and in the case of the Old
Age Security Act, OAS, and the Canada pension plan, CPP, to
increase consistency between these programs.
To the degree to which technical items in this bill achieve
those ends we certainly support this bill.
However, let us look at these major programs and the need to
address them not only from a purely technical point of view but
at the programs and their viability and their serviceability and
their achievements. Are they doing what they are intended to
do?
This brings the operations of the various pieces of legislation
more into harmony with one another and it does correct various
minor flaws and omissions in the legislation. It addresses the
section on appeals and on confidentiality of information.
The only significant change that exists is that under clauses 9
and 23 of the act affecting clauses 18 and 37 of the OAS act, the
crown can now attempt to recover accidental overpayments
from more than a year ago provided this would cause no undue
hardship. Inquiries should be made in the human resources
development committee as to whether this really is the meaning
of this section and if so how significant such a provision could
be financially and why it was made.
What about the big picture? The government has been in
power for one year. The government prepared to be in power for
four years and developed the red book, the infamous Mao red
book.
During the election campaign the current Prime Minister
travelled across the country holding up this red book,
pronouncing that he had the people and he had the plan. Where
he did not have the people he duly appointed them in those
ridings where they could not get elected.
Now he finds out that the plan, which is not very democratic in
my opinion, he and the finance minister and many others in the
front row on the benches of the government had was no action
plan whatsoever.
What has this government accomplished after one year? It has
the plan. It supposedly has the people. Here we are 12 months
after almost to the day when this government took over. After
cancelling the EH-101 contract, after cancelling the Pearson
airport contract, after reversing its election campaign promise
on NAFTA, which of course we supported-it finally saw the
light on that one-what has it done? As far as legislation in this
House, we have had housecleaning bills, housecleaning bills and
more housecleaning bills.
In January the first bill brought before this House was Bill
C-2, an act to amalgamate the Department of National Revenue
and taxation with customs and excise in an effort to improve
efficiency and effectiveness. This is the very same justification
and tremendous adjectives and rhetoric it is using to promote
this bill. It is a small technical bill and the government makes it
appear it is doing great wondrous things for seniors and
pensioners.
What did that bill accomplish from back in January earlier
this year, efficiency and effectiveness? They have been really
effective at the borders. They are seizing books they should not
seize. They have been really effective collecting taxation. Since
they took over there is $6 billion in taxes uncollected. There are
more dollars uncollected in GST. The more we look into this the
more we find out that this government has done less instead of
6970
more, the more we find out that this government is less efficient
and effective than more.
Today we have before us Bill C-54, another housecleaning
bill and the government makes it sound as if it is better,
improved, more efficient and more effective.
I ask the Canadian public to listen to what this government
says, to what its front benchers say because the difference
between what it says, what actually happens and where we will
end up is like day and night.
(1310 )
Let us get back to this bill specifically. Let us look at the
Canada pension plan, the CPP. It is a compulsory pension plan
based on earnings. Upon retirement it pays 25 per cent of former
salary up to $8,000 per year. Only former contributors are
eligible. CPP is left out of the federal budget and not included in
the analysis. The annual cost is $13.2 billion for the
government's share of this program.
The present value of the Canada pension plan based on some
sound assumptions is several billions of dollars. The payments
will have to rise 6 per cent to 7 per cent of income or an increase
of three to four times for Canada pension if we keep the current
method of funding. Will future generations be able to afford
this? Will the young Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General be collecting his money like he earlier said he would?
Why not begin now to fix the problem? It is ignored by the
finance minister in his planning for economic development. It is
ignored by the finance minister in his budgetary process and it is
ignored in this bill.
The present value of public service unfunded liability just for
the federal government is $100 billion. This number was given
to the finance committee as recently as last night by a prominent
economist. Once again, why not begin to fix this problem of
unfunded insurance now?
When the finance minister declares that Canadians do not
want to make cuts, when the Prime Minister declares that
Canadians do not want to make cuts, because as the
prebugdetary consultative process goes across this land and as
they discuss with Canadians and in committee as to what they
should do and what they cannot do, it will be the special interest
groups that will organize, flood and distort the prebudget
conferences which primarily exclude the rank and file average
Canadian.
The finance minister and the Prime Minister will announce
that they have no choice but to raise taxes, first of all because of
their commitment and because come hell or high water, as said
by the finance minister, he will meet his deficit targets.
When both the finance minister and the Prime Minister have a
ready made excuse, which is what this whole two month process
is all about the way I see it, they will look to raising taxes.
As recently as yesterday the finance minister said if the
Canadian public will not look at cuts, if the Canadian public will
not look at the sound economic planning of the finance minister,
they have no choice but to raise taxes because of their
commitment in the red book.
The finance minister will have to look to RRSPs for taxes. He
will do that because it is too obvious. It is too big an area to leave
untouched. It is too tempting. It is too easy. He just needs the
excuse and it will be there.
These prebudget hearings are merely invented to help the
government, the finance minister and the Prime Minister to
develop an excuse based on the results of the so-called
deliberations across this great land to interpret these
submissions to their own pleasure at the expense and pain of the
Canadian taxpayers.
In any case, when he does look at taxing RRSPs I hope he
proceeds to consider the following. I hope he does not tax
RRSPs. If he does I hope he also then adheres to the principle of
fairness which was enunciated in the red book, which is
enunciated by the finance minister in his purple book, which is
enunciated in the grey book by the finance minister. We now
have three books that are committed to the principle of fairness.
An hon. member: He should write a comic book.
Mr. Silye: I believe the finance minister should write a comic
book. He likes to give answers quite often in a comedic fashion.
(1315 )
If he is going to tax RRSPs for all Canadians across this land,
then he should also consider taxing those funds the government
puts into MP pension plans, that portion which is a seven to one
ratio that we put in as MPs. That government portion should be
taxed in all the public service pension plans as well.
We like to pride ourselves as not only listening to people and
looking at what the problems are, but coming up with solutions
based on what causes the problem. What causes the problem in
both OAS and in CPP is that there are insufficient funds to look
after future generations. Why not consider combining OAS and
the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, with the CPP into a
single guaranteed annual income program for the elderly? It
would be phased in gradually to preserve benefits for the current
generation of pensioners. This would pay more to the poorer
seniors and less to the wealthy seniors.
The principle and problem I am trying to resolve is the fact
that what I pay into CPP today and what I have paid into it is less
than what future generations are going to have to pay when they
6971
have to pay for me. That is because it is only funded by current
premiums. It is not set up on an actuarially sound basis. That is
what we should be looking at to solve that problem.
Let us look at OAS. OAS is a universal pension scheme. It
pays a pension to all but the wealthiest seniors with benefits up
to $4,547 per person and is taxed back at 15 cents per dollar of
income above $53,000. The annual cost is $14.4 billion.
There is also a guaranteed income supplement for those
seniors who truly need it. This particular program has to be
preserved. This program must continue. We must make cuts
elsewhere in the budget so as not to affect the seniors guaranteed
income supplement. It is imperative that the $4.3 billion subsidy
in this area is protected and guaranteed. Those are the seniors
who truly need it. Not only do they need their OAS but they need
their GIS.
What we should do is perhaps combine OAS with the CPP, a
solution to ensuring there is something left for those seniors
who really need it and for those who need extra over and above
their CPP there is a guaranteed annual income. Their income
levels are topped up based on whatever level we define as the
bare minimum required for food, shelter and clothing.
We should develop our social programs, design and target
them to those people who truly need them. If the funding could
come from the government to those people through the raising
of funds directly for those people rather than through the various
complex methods we are now using through the Income Tax Act
it would be more clear and obvious and less costly
administratively. It would also be more effective and efficient.
More money would go into the hands and pockets of those
people who truly need it.
Earlier today I debated under questions and comments with
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. He stated
that he was a Liberal and I agreed; I figure I have learned that
much. He also said he felt there would be enough money in the
Canada pension plan for him despite the fact that the
contributions he is currently making do not allow for the
unfunded liability. With that extra great incremental cost that
will be there he still believes he does not have to worry.
I understand he is only 32 years old and he is not worried. I
know 60 year olds who are five years away from collecting it
who are worried. I know 63 year olds who are worried. I think
the parliamentary secretary should be a little bit worried.
He also stated that as a Liberal he believes in the principle of
universality. This was a great concept the Liberals subscribed to
even back in 1968. I remember that when I was in university.
Universality had a purpose then. Universality had a reason for
the majority of Canadians to follow it. There was nothing wrong
when the principle of universality was introduced at the time
that it was. However this is 1994, not the 1960s. Although the
principle of universality has a lot of merits and would be great if
we could afford it, that is the point: we cannot afford it.
(1320)
We must look at and develop programs that help the seniors
and students. Once they are developed what we need to do is not
adhere to a principle of universality but adhere to a principle of
universal access for those people who need to tap into these
great programs. These great programs the government spends
hours, days, months and years developing should be available
and accessible universally, and portable all across this land.
That is the way to address our social programs.
As long as this government continues to believe in the
principle of universality and thinks we can live the life of Riley
at the expense of future generations, then it will never solve the
problems that face this country. It will never really address them
with an action plan. One or two years from now the government
will be coming up with another book of another colour looking
for further discussion and further consultation.
I also debated with the government whip on a TV program. He
told me that this plan of the Minister of Human Resources
Development would be one that would help solve the problems
of our social programs. I told him on television-and he can
look at the tape-that it would just be a discussion paper, that
there was no action plan at all. He disagreed and I said I would
eat my words. Well, I do not have to. Now we know.
Not even the government members know what the senior
cabinet ministers are doing. They are just tinkering with the
system. It is a complex system, but rather than addressing the
big major problems, they are avoiding them.
In conclusion, I have a seventh point, if I could find it here.
My fellow members are saying to end, to finish, but I still have a
couple of minutes. Do I have anything left to say? If I had
another 15 minutes I would repeat it all because the members
opposite as usual do not listen.
We know what the purpose of their bill is; we know they are
not addressing the problem. But the purpose of my speech is so
that hon. members across the way can accept some constructive
criticism and perhaps solve the problems that truly face this
nation and we can get on with an action plan for this country, not
a discussion plan.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this was such a good speech I almost felt like not
asking a question. Almost. But I was really urged to do so when
some of the member's own colleagues seemed to disagree as to
how excellent his speech was. They seemed to urge their
colleague to sit down rather prematurely. I would not have
6972
suggested that because of the immense respect I have for the
member across the way.
I heard him say a few things in his speech which I believe to
be-how should I say it-factually incorrect. One of them is
with regard to the MPs' pension plan. In his remarks-and I
disagree with him as to the figure-he said the taxpayer
subsidizes $7 to $1 for what the MP contributes to the system. I
think that is a bunch of nonsense.
Going beyond that, and I do not know how he concocted the
reasoning but perhaps he could explain it to us. He alluded to the
fact that the benefits of that were non-taxable and that the $7 to
$1 which he says the government puts in should be taxed.
Perhaps there are more creative accountants who do the
bookkeeping for people who are members of the Reform Party
when they receive benefits from pensions, but I do not receive
any MP pension and heaven knows whether I ever will. However
I intend to pay my taxes. I am sure that Liberal colleagues who
have come and gone and who are now receiving pensions do pay
taxes on those benefits. Those benefits are in fact taxable. I
challenge the member to indicate to us why he feels they are not
taxable. For what reason is he attempting to convince Canadians
that what is factually incorrect is a reality. That is how I put it to
be kind.
(1325)
I also want to challenge him on another issue. The member
talked about the fact that he wants a guaranteed annual income.
We heard that. I agree with that proposition. He said we should
have a guaranteed annual income and he also said moments later
that we should end universality of pensions. Recognizing that
universality only applies to the basic pension it is a form of
guaranteed annual income for people who are beyond a certain
age.
I do not understand how the hon. member across the way
could advocate both of these things together. I do not think it is
reasonable to suggest we should end universality and replace it
with a system that he qualified as a guaranteed annual income.
How does that make sense at all? How is it essentially different
from that which exists right now for people who get nothing
more than the minimum amount? Perhaps he could explain that
for the benefit of all members.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to state that
as a rookie parliamentarian I am fast learning what those with
experience do. They like to twist things. Whatever it is you say
they like to twist and flip it, just as the member opposite did
when he stood up and said that I think we should have a
guaranteed annual income. I did not say that. What I said was
that we could consider it. I said let us solve the big problem. We
could consider it.
Also members opposite, especially the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Finance, said that in
the social policy debate when the hon. member for Calgary
North talked about what the federal government had to do to
meet their deficit targets, the cuts it would have to make. The
cuts this government has to make to meet its targets are not the
$9 billion being talked about in the newspapers today. Over the
next two and a half to three years it will be cuts of $15 billion
that will have to be made. That is the point our member on the
committee made at a press conference.
This government proceeds not only in Question Period but at
any opportunity it gets to say that the Reform Party is
recommending cuts of $15 billion in social programs. That is not
true. The government itself is recommending cuts of about $9
billion in social programs. It is not saying it. Secret memos are
circulating from minister to minister. It does not come clean
with the general public. It likes to twist things.
Yesterday the member for Calgary West asked why go over a
wide chasm in two leaps. The finance minister got up right
away; why not do it in one, was the implication. That was my
inference. What was the finance minister's inference? His is:
``Let's twist it and use it against them. The public is gullible; the
public will really listen to me. I have a good routine. I can really
deliver this. Unlike the Reform Party, we would not do it in two
steps''. He missed the point, as they continually do. Similarly,
the government whip has just missed the point on taxing and the
point I made about the MP pension plans.
During my speech I may have said $7 to $1. If I said that it is
inaccurate and I am wrong. That is not accurate so to that degree
I will agree with it. The amount of money MPs put into the
pension plan and the amount the government puts in on our
behalf is not matching dollar for dollar. It is not matching two
for one. It is not matching three for one.
There are two parts to it. There is a 4 per cent and a 7 per cent.
The 7 per cent part, not the pension plan itself but the 7 per cent,
the registered annual allowance or whatever it is, I do not even
know the initials it is so complicated, the ratio of what the
government puts in, what the taxpayers put in, versus what MPs
put in is seven to one. If he cares to refute that then he can rise
any time he wishes.
(1330 )
This is the kind of twisting government people do once they
get power. I do not understand. In business I get nowhere by
misrepresenting the facts. I get egg on my face and I get the door
closed in my face the next time I come around. Perhaps that is
why people in Canada always turf out a government: they find
when members are over on this side they say one thing but when
they are on the other side they do another.
6973
This is one thing the Reform Party will not do. What we say
here today on this side, what we put in our blue book and our
policy book, and what we work hard to do to find out what
constituents want and the voters want, we will do when we get
over on that side. Mr. Speaker, I assure you we will be over
on that side and we will do what we said we would do from
this side.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my friend opposite to whom I paid rapt attention talked
about the gullibility of the public. I would suggest, given the
results of the election almost a year ago, the public was not
gullible. It was sensible when it elected 177 Liberals.
In any event it is my great honour to rise in the House today to
speak in support of Bill C-54 which seeks to increase the
efficiency of a number of income security programs and, by
doing so, to improve client services.
I am sure all members of the House have either heard
complaints in the media about government runaround or they
have had to intervene themselves on behalf of constituents with
problems. I know that I have.
Frankly these problems usually involved programs delivered
by Human Resources Development Canada. As members are no
doubt aware this can be time consuming for clients and time
consuming for our staffs, for ourselves and for human resources
development employees. Improvements have to be made to this
situation. That is clear to me and it is certainly clear to the
minister.
The income security programs branch of Human Resources
Development Canada which administers the Old Age Security
Act and the Canada pension plan, the two programs most
directly impacted by the bill, is committed to addressing the
challenge of improving client services. To do so the branch has
undertaken a three-year project to implement computer services
and high technology systems in order to replace existing
systems which are clearly antiquated.
The government wants to be proud of the service it provides to
its many ISP clients across Canada. As well frontline staff and
all other staff in the public service sincerely want to be able to
work more efficiently because they realize the impact that their
work can have on benefit recipients or on those seeking
information about those programs.
Many of the amendments contained in the bill complement
the redesigned project. For instance, expanded information
sharing provisions and improved consistency between the
Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act will alleviate
many of the frustrations benefit recipients have had to deal with
in the past.
There is another type of client service provided for in the bill
which I should like to mention. It involves two amendments to
the Canada pension plan, the direct result of client
representations to the government and requests for change.
In 1987 significant changes were made to the Canada pension
plan which made flexible retirement possible for the first time.
In recognition of the fact that Canadians wanted more say in
when they would be able to retire, the Canada pension plan was
amended to allow people to take their retirement benefits as
early as age 60 and as late as age 70. For those taking early
retirement between 60 and 65 years of age the benefit was
reduced. For those taking late retirement between 65 and 70 the
benefit was increased.
Upon introducing flexible retirement it was determined that it
was only necessary to pay 12 months of retroactive retirement
benefits to persons who delayed their benefit until after they
were 70 years of age. It was felt that persons retiring at some
point between 65 and 70 no longer needed this option because
their benefit entitlement would be increased to reflect the fact
that they had not taken their retirement benefit five years before,
at age 65.
Experience has shown that there are those individuals over 65
years of age who would rather have up to 12 months of
retroactive retirement pension than the actuarial increase in
their monthly pensions. For this reason one amendment in the
bill would allow persons to delay applying for retirement
benefits past age 65 and to have the benefits paid retroactively
for up to 12 months if they chose. The nice thing about it is that it
is done at their election and is not something the government
forces on them.
(1335)
Another amendment to the Canada pension plan is also a
reflection of the plan responding to input from the clients it
serves. I am referring to an amendment which would allow
former spouses divorced between 1978 and 1987 to waive the
three-year limit for making application for a division of pension
credits.
As I am sure many members are aware, when credit splitting
was first introduced into the plan in 1978 it was only available to
individuals who divorced or had their marriages annulled on or
after January 1, 1978. As well, one of the conditions for a credit
split was that application had to be made within three years of
the date of the divorce or annulment.
In 1987 credit splitting was extended to separated spouses and
the time limit was removed for divorced spouses but only if the
divorce occurred after January 1, 1987. While this was certainly
a major step forward in the pension protection afforded women,
it did not recognize those women who had missed out on the
time limit that had been in place. The further back we go in time,
the more women we have in divorce situations who did not work
or contribute to the Canada pension plan during their married
lives.
6974
The rationale for not removing the time limit for the group
divorced prior to 1987 was that the government would be
changing the rules of the game after the fact. By this reasoning,
a divorced spouse who had not had his or her credit split had
a right to expect that he or she could make his or her retirement
plans in the knowledge that CPP pension credits would not be
split. There was one group left out of this attempt at fairness:
former spouses who wanted a credit split even though the
three-year limit had passed.
I am sure all members of the House would agree with me that
divorced spouses who stayed at home to raise their children and
to attend to the countless challenges which are part of taking
care of a home deserve a fair share of the pension protection
earned during the time the couple was together. The amendment
would allow the three-year time limit to be waived and therefore
would allow a credit split where both parties agree in writing.
Passage of the legislation will supplement other initiatives
under way within the department which will improve customer
service and will allow the employees of the department the
opportunity to provide excellent service to an ever growing
client population. Over the next few years the introduction of a
better way of doing business, supported by new technology, will
renovate the department's systems and update those which are at
least a quarter of a century old.
Because our client service will be greatly enhanced, future
seniors in need will receive rapid and responsive service. This
will at least give the department the tools and technology they
need to provide the excellent service Canadians expect and
Canadians deserve.
I am proud of the way the government has risen to the
challenge to provide even better and more responsive service at
a lower cost. In spite of the important role played by technology,
I am pleased the initiative has not lost sight of its real intent
which is to help to provide for the security of Canadians. It is
clear that Canada's income security programs faithfully reflect
the needs and the characteristics of the people they serve. It is
for this reason that I am supporting the bill and that I urge all
other members to do likewise.
The bill is one example of several undertakings the
government has made in connection with the red book promises.
We have promised, particularly in the human resources area,
that we will streamline programs so that their administration
costs less, their service is better and the people who need money,
the people who need support, will be the ones who get it. The
amendments to the Canada pension plan and to other income
security plans have taken us a long way toward fulfilling that
promise.
The next step is the overall social security review, during
which time we will be consulting with Canadians based upon our
discussion paper. We will be hearing from Canadians what their
position is and what their beliefs are on how we can provide
them with better income security programs at a lower cost.
(1340)
Those members who are critical of the program should get
busy, get out there, have townhall meetings in their ridings, find
out what their people are saying, find out what they want from
our government, and let us know.
This is a consultative government. This is a transparent
government. This is an open government. This is a government
that will deliver responsible government services in an efficient
and timely fashion.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the
member and I appreciate her comments. As we have said before,
we agree with many things that are in the bill.
With regard to the Canada pension plan I was wondering if the
member might be able to answer a few questions for me. First,
the facts of the situation are that our population is aging. In
1986, 9 per cent of all Canadians were eligible for the Canada
pension plan. It is estimated now that by the year 2031 the ratio
will have doubled.
I truly hope the program continues. I have contributed to the
program and when I am 65 years of age I hope that it will be
there. People like myself have 23 years to go before we can
collect it. Quite honestly for my age group, and I am sure many
members would agree, it just does not appear feasible that the
program will be around.
Has the member recognized the problem of the aging
population and the fact that between now and the next few years
the portion we contribute to that program will have to triple for
it to remain solvent? The program is going to be a problem in the
future. Can the member comment on that?
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quarrel with my friend's
numbers because I do not know if they are accurate or not.
The government is a Liberal government and it was a Liberal
government that put in place the Canada pension plan in the first
place. For a question like that to come to me is especially
appropriate because the late Right Hon. Paul Martin, Senior,
was a key person in putting the pension plan in place and I hold
his riding today, a fact of which I am very proud.
I can assure the member and the listening public that under a
Liberal government the Canada pension plan will not falter; it
will not fail. Yes, even my friend opposite in 23 years' time will
get his Canada pension plan payments.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member suggested a number of times in her
6975
speech that these changes would achieve a much lower cost in
terms of administration of the program.
How much are these savings and how would they be achieved?
I would ask her to be specific if she could.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to live in 1994
when technology has reached a point that by its use we can
implement mechanized and virtually foolproof office
procedures and administrative procedures that are much more
efficient and less labour intensive than 25 years ago when the
services we currently have were put into place.
The nice thing about the Canada pension plan is that it is a
unit. Administration comes out of the plan itself so that the
lower the administration goes, the more money we have to make
payments to our friend who in 23 years is worrying about how
much money he is going to get every month.
(1345 )
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member if she
could be specific. She referred to replacing civil servants with
technology, but that does not tell me in any way that there will be
savings or how much these savings will be.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to replacing civil
servants with technology. I did not say that at all. What I did say
was that we could mechanize offices and make more efficient
the administration that we have. There will still be civil
servants. This will never be, at least in our mandate, a totally
mechanized system.
The Canada pension plan is absolutely precious to Canadians
and certainly to the Liberal government which established it in
the first place. When we look at the Canada pension plan we
know as a government that it is important that we continue to
streamline it so that the money in this plan goes to its clients and
not to inefficiencies which have been built into the system,
particularly over the last nine years.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, old age pensions are a subject of concern to me
because, so far, the legislation put in place by the government of
Canada has dug into the pockets of the unemployed and limited
access to funds for the poor. This government seems to be in the
habit of attacking the most vulnerable and seniors, who are
certainly among the most vulnerable members of our society.
But Parliament should have every respect for these people
who deserve to retain full pensions wherever possible. After all,
the quality of life that we enjoy today, we owe it to their work,
their hard work. And when we talk about wanting to reorganize
old age pensions, it causes us and them concern.
Of course there are problems. Our population is aging and the
demographics of an aging population can cause problems. But
the government should state clearly-and make it really
clear-today and in the weeks to come, that it has no intention of
reducing the entitlements of our seniors. That is what matters
and causes concern because so far, the government has made
promises regarding the protection of entitlements for the
disadvantaged, promises it has definitely failed to fulfil.
The government made cutbacks in the UI program, in
programs providing support to the disadvantaged, in community
programs. I wonder: could the hon. member rise in this House
today and state clearly and firmly that her government intends to
fully maintain all existing entitlements for the seniors of this
country?
[English]
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, with this cold, this laryngitis and
this temperature, this member can barely stand at all. However I
am happy to stand in the House and say to my friend opposite
and to all Canadians that the senior citizens of Canada are
absolutely, perfectly, totally and completely safe with the
Liberal government in power.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to hear from the other side of the
House and this member that the Canada pension plan is such a
sacred and important program that all Canadians can rejoice in
knowing that they do not have to fear down the road that there
will not be such a program.
With a program such as this, I am sure that the Liberal
government, when this program was developed, looked into the
future a little bit and had a vision. If it did, surely this program
would have a reserve fund. However, I am afraid that the Canada
pension plan does not have a reserve fund to ensure that
Canadians down the road, 23 or 25 years from now, will be
assured that when they pay into a program they will actually
receive benefits. No, there is no reserve fund. The way the
Canada pension plan system works-I would like the member to
comment on this-is that the people who are working today pay
into the Canada pension plan. The money they pay into the
program does not go into a reserve fund and it is not held in a
sacred trust for their retirement. That money is used to pay the
benefits of the people who are collecting today.
(1350)
We are headed down a road and there is a wall. At some point
in time we are going to hit that wall.
I would like the member to please comment on this. If this
program is so valuable to the government why is it not
actuarially sound?
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I just love to hear this stuff from
over there.
I am from Windsor. I may not have mentioned that any more
than two or three times today. Windsor is on the Canada-U.S.
border for those from far away who maybe have not been there.
Detroit is so close that people go there for lunch and get back in
an hour. When we go to Detroit we can see what happens when
6976
people start talking about debt walls and knocking money off of
our social programs for the sake of the bottom line.
Over there we can see seniors in the gutter because they have
no other place to go. We can thank a right wing governor for that,
a guy whose policies sound very much like the policies of the
current Canadian Reform Party.
The Canada pension plan is fiscally sound. The government is
sound. The government will be here for a long time and so will
the Canada pension plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House when you
are in the Chair.
I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-54 because
this legislation, which looks to be an harmonization measure,
could have a significant impact on the poorest people in our
society. It should be pointed out for the benefit of those viewers
who may have just joined us that Bill C-54 amends four very
important acts providing the basis of income support measures
for the poorest Canadians.
Indeed, Bill C-54 is an act to amend the Old Age Security Act,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act
and the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is therefore a piece of
legislation which targets the two main pillars of our social
security system, namely social assistance and social insurance.
It should also be pointed out that this is a bill which deals
primarily with income support measures for our seniors. As you
know, several experts claim that, on the whole, the problem of
poverty among seniors is not as bad as it once was.
Consequently, the old assumption that poverty and old age went
hand in hand is probably not quite true any more. However, the
fact remains that, compared to the national average, that age
group still has the highest percentage of low-income
individuals.
Let us take a look at the 1992 figures. That year, about 16.8
per cent of all Canadians were considered to be low-income
individuals. However, the figure was 20.6 per cent in the case of
our seniors. Consequently, the government has to be very
careful when reviewing any legislation affecting seniors, for we
have not necessarily done everything we could to ensure that
people over 55 have a decent income to live on.
(1355)
And I think we will have to consider this in connection with
the bill before the House today. I must admit this bill contains a
number of positive elements, but we must not forget that in this
situation, the government is firmly resolved to do everything it
possibly can, and this often includes measures that
unfortunately affect people who are vulnerable.
It has to be said, and we as the Official Opposition have a
responsibility in this respect, that Bill C-54, ostensibly an
attempt at harmonization, is intended to give the government a
chance to save money. In this respect, in the way it treats
seniors, it is consistent with the last Martin budget, because you
will recall that the budget brought down last February
substantially reduced the tax credit for seniors.
Before the budget, seniors in this country could count on an
age credit, which meant they could claim 17 per cent of their
taxable income. This gave seniors in this country a tax rebate of
roughly $610. We all know that the last budget launched a
shameless attack on this tax credit and deprived the neediest in
our society of a tax rebate to which they otherwise would have
been entitled.
Although Bill C-54 is supposed to be about harmonization, it
must be pointed out that its purpose is also to make it possible
for the government to get money back from the neediest in this
country, through our tax system. However, since we have always
taken a very positive approach, I would like to take a few
minutes, and it certainly will not take long, to describe the more
positive aspects of this bill.
There is the fact that it will be possible, in some cases, for
spousal benefits to automatically become OAS benefits, without
having to go through all the red tape that is so onerous for
Canadians.
Other positive points-and I see my time is running out. Yes, I
will sit down like a good boy at 2 p.m.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, we will hear the rest of your
speech after Question Period, if all goes well, but it being 2 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6976
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that October 17 to
21, 1994 is the first National Infertility Awareness Week.
Infertility is a condition that affects approximately 500,000
Canadians. Although not life threatening, it can have a profound
effect on a person's life. Since 1994 is the International Year of
the Family, the theme for the first National Infertility Awareness
Week is ``Infertility in the International Year of the Family''.
The Infertility Awareness Association of Canada is a national
charitable organization offering support and education to
individuals with infertility concerns. During National Infertility
6977
Awareness Week the organization and its many volunteers will
feature public awareness events across Canada.
Please join me in congratulating the Infertility Awareness
Association of Canada on its excellent work and in wishing them
all the best for a very successful national week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is launching a major media
campaign under the theme: ``Jobs and Growth''. It is putting on
quite a show!
However, having carefully reviewed the three documents
tabled regarding social programs and finances, we are forced to
recognize that the federal government is putting forth no
positive job creation measures. It is nothing but an empty
slogan.
The government has set specific deficit reduction targets but
none regarding job creation. The government has no
constructive job strategy or policy. Yet this is the government
that had put job creation at the forefront of its election
campaign.
What initiatives did this Liberal government take? It has cut
in social programs to force the unemployed onto welfare, thus
passing the buck to the provinces.
The federal government is short of ideas. It should let the
provinces take over; they are in a much better position to look
after their own economic development.
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is National Science and Technology Week. I would
like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to a remarkable young
woman from the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Ciel Patenaude of Horsefly, British Columbia will be facing
the world next May in the International Science and Engineering
Fair in Hamilton, Ontario. Ciel and her 31 teammates will be
representing Canada for the first time in this world series of
science fairs, competing against 1,000 high school students
from 30 countries.
I am pleased that more and more women are becoming
involved in science and engineering. I am especially proud that
Cariboo-Chilcotin will be represented at the International
Science and Engineering Fair. I wish Ciel and her teammates all
the best in the upcoming competition.
I will be looking forward to Team Canada bringing home the
gold.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the fine men and women of Halifax West
who put their names forward to serve as school board members
and municipal councillors.
To those whose bids were unsuccessful, I extend my thanks
and appreciation for their commitment to our communities, our
schools and our children.
To the councillors elected last Saturday I offer my sincere
congratulations and best wishes. I have enjoyed working with
the town of Bedford, the county of Halifax and the city of
Halifax on the infrastructure program. It is already paying big
dividends in communities across the country with 100,000 jobs.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating the women and
men who work so hard to make our communities better places to
live in and our schools better places to learn.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of members of
the House and all Canadians that October 16-23 is National
Dental Hygiene Week. The purpose of this campaign is to
remind Canadians that oral health is important. By improving
our oral health we can improve our overall health.
This year's campaign focuses on teens and addresses issues
such as smokeless tobacco, gum disease and general mouth care.
Natural teeth are meant to last a lifetime and good home dental
care can help teens and other Canadians reach this goal.
Dental hygienists are staging mall displays, visiting schools
and community centres and working with local media to
increase knowledge of oral health. Fact sheets focusing on teen
oral health issues are also available.
The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association is to be
congratulated for mounting a promotion which also highlights
the role of dental hygienists in helping Canadians to achieve
good oral health.
I am sure all members of the House congratulate the Canadian
Dental Hygienists Association and wish it much success in this
very important campaign.
6978
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention today
the tireless efforts of support workers across Canada on the
occasion of the National Homemaker/Home Support Worker
Week. This week was established to recognize the outstanding
work of over 60,000 homemakers and home support workers
across Canada.
These support workers provide more than five million hours
of home based care each year to the elderly, the disabled, AIDS
victims and others requiring palliative and long term care at
home.
I am confident that all my constituents in the riding of
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo and the members of the House
share my appreciation for the job these workers perform and
encourage all Canadians to take the time this week to recognize
the valuable contribution that home support workers provide to
our communities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
we learned earlier this week that the Department of National
Defence was participating in a missile firing competition using
F-18 aircraft.
The Canadian delegation was over 60 strong. While cutting in
social programs, not only did the government allow missiles
costing $400,000 a piece to be fired, but the Department of
National Defence also offered free air transportation to Florida
for Canadian media covering the event.
There is something indecent about this ``charm the media''
operation and the use of public funds for that purpose.
Fortunately, most media outfits declined the Department of
National Defence's offer.
When will the government realize that this country's means
no longer match its ambitions and that the Department of
National Defence must stop such frivolous spending?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the Imperial Cancer Research Fund released
the staggering results of the longest and most extensive study
ever undertaken into tobacco use. Their findings show that
smoking causes 100 times more deaths than it prevents and at
least half of these smokers will be killed by their habit.
(1405 )
These statistics are shocking but even more shocking is the
fact that in the six months since the government rolled back the
taxes, sales are up 41 per cent.
This sharp increase in overall consumption is directly
attributable to the drop in prices. The federal Minister of Health
said it is time for Canada to share the expertise it has gained in
its efforts to reduce smoking in Canada.
The government is guilty of negligence with its policy in this
regard. It should now do the right thing and scrap the tobacco tax
rollback which has backfired so badly. Anything less will cost us
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost GNP, increased costs in
health care, and untold human suffering and death.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, P.C.): Mr. Speaker, the
business and traffic in the port of Saint John was extremely good
this past year. The port set a record for total port throughput by
handling just under 20 million tonnes of cargo over a 12-month
period. As well, total traffic is up 11 per cent over the same
period last year.
Yesterday a Canadian Press story from Halifax, Nova Scotia,
referred to a senior official from CP who stated that the city of
Saint John and the port of Saint John would be negatively
affected by his company's bid to take over the CN Rail line and
to sell off the rest of its Atlantic operations.
At a time when the port of Saint John is active and many
people earn their living at the port, we must not lose our rail
infrastructure.
I urge the Prime Minister and his government to ensure that
the rail links to and from the port of Saint John are a priority
with any of the government's discussions with CP.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to welcome the mayor of
Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, who is visiting Ottawa.
While the mayor's party affiliation has always been a
mystery, her politics are clear. Born in the Gaspé, she has served
the public for 27 years, 16 years as mayor of the ninth largest
city in Canada.
Mississauga is debt free with almost half a billion dollars in
reserves. All public buildings, including the new city hall, are
mortgage free. A $60 million Living Arts Centre is currently
under construction, thanks to the mayor's personal fundraising
6979
efforts and to the recognition of the Minister responsible for
Infrastructure that such projects are a worthwhile use of
infrastructure money.
Again, I wish to welcome Mayor McCallion to our fair city. I
would also like to issue a warning to batten down the hatches.
She usually stirs up a pile of trouble wherever she goes.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Ontario Association of Childrens Aid
Societies, I wish to bring to the attention of the House that this is
Canadian Foster Family Week.
In this International Year of the Family the celebration of the
contributions of foster parents is even more significant. It is
important to recognize that nearly 5,000 Ontario foster families
provide much needed care, nurturing and stability for children
in need of protection, many having suffered from abuse and
neglect.
Between 1982 and 1992 the number of foster families
available to care for children dropped substantially. This created
personal challenges for the Childrens Aid Societies and in some
cases required the separation of siblings and a move far from the
child's home community.
Canadian Foster Family Week provides an opportunity for
members of this House to recognize the contribution of foster
families in their respective communities. We must alert the
general public to the need for more foster parents to care for
children who need the special love and care that foster parents
can provide.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to state on the
record my opposition to the decision of the Chinese government
to continue the testing of nuclear weapons.
For the third time in the past year China has detonated an
explosive nuclear device, an action clearly out of step with the
negotiations currently under way in Geneva to reach agreement
on a nuclear test ban treaty. Indeed China is the only one of the
five nuclear states not to adhere to the moratorium on nuclear
testing in effect for the duration of these negotiations.
The Chinese government claims that the devices being tested
are limited in scope and to be used for defensive purposes only.
Regardless of such claims, I would like to echo the concerns of
many of my constituents and I think most members of the
House, to tell the Chinese government that we do not appreciate
this kind of testing and would like to see it stopped at this time.
(1410)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has spoken at great length about Canada's
generous system of redistributing wealth from one province to
another. And yet, in its reform of unemployment insurance in
the last budget, the federal government went looking for close to
$1.4 billion in the pockets of unemployed workers in Quebec
and the Maritimes. Close to 60 per cent of the initial cuts are
affecting these regions, which are hard hit by the job crisis.
Now, as a result of social program reform, these regions will
again bear the brunt, with cuts in the billions of dollars.
Quebecers will not accept a reform whose sole objective is to
slash programs. Although opposition to the reform is
widespread, Quebec's response to this attack will be quite
different. When it attains sovereignty, it will be sure to
implement a full employment policy, using its own resources.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
just 31 days a group of MPs will be swaggering up to the trough
and stuffing their snouts into it. Yes, 52 MPs will become
eligible to slurp from the insanely rich MP pension fund
November 21. Potentially they could suck $53 million out of the
pockets of Canadian taxpayers.
Canadians find it absolutely unacceptable when the Prime
Minister says he is dedicated to spending cuts and continues to
allow this kind of taxpayer abuse.
The national debt is now $534,994,000,000. Canadians
demand the Prime Minister act now to stop national trough day
before it is too late.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we have had another
Canadian citizen fall victim to a fatal gun shooting.
Last week Stephen Braithwaite lost his life after a parking lot
gun battle at an after hours club in North York. According to
police reports at least two automatic or semi-automatic
weapons were used in this gun fight.
Canadians are wondering what these guns are doing on the
streets in a public place and how they were obtained.
6980
This is not an isolated incident. Police have reported that
there have been quite a few other gun related incidents at these
clubs over the past month. Law-abiding citizens living around
these after hour clubs are extremely concerned. They cannot
properly raise their families when they are constantly living in
fear.
I call on the government to initiate a solution to this problem.
Let us work with the provincial governments to clean up our
streets.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today's launching of the National Forum on Health
marks the dawn of an exciting new era in Canada's medicare.
For too long Canadians have been concerned about long
waiting lists, rising drug costs, the scarcity of rural physicians,
inefficiencies in the system, quality of home care and many
more.
At the same time, they know Canada must cope with costs due
to new technology, new drugs, our aging population and the
emergence of new diseases.
The forum, chaired by the Prime Minister, will bring together
Canada's wealth of talent and knowledge in the health care field
such as that of Dr. Noralou Roos of Winnipeg. It will engage
Canadians in developing solutions to challenges facing
medicare, taking into account its five basic principles and all the
major determinants of health.
The National Forum on Health will set the framework for
Canada's renewed vision of medicare as we approach the 21st
century. Let us applaud the government.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to read you an excerpt from a letter: ``I am writing to
further offer my strong support for the project because of the
significant job creation this project will provide-One of the
main objectives of the infrastructure program is to promote
public and private sector partnerships that will not only improve
the local and regional economic climate but also help Canada as
a whole attract corporations by providing prime business
opportunity-''.
One would logically assume that the Prime Minister or the
minister responsible for the program would have made this
statement.
(1415 )
The fact is that the member for Simcoe Centre made this
statement in support of infrastucture programs in the city of
Barrie despite condemning them yesterday.
The national infrastucture program has been a catalyst for job
creation. If the Reform Party followed our government's
example perhaps the public would not be so cynical of
politicians.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, social security reform is a very serious issue for all
Canadians. It offers alternatives to address the serious
challenges we must face.
In Atlantic Canada social security reform left many
unanswered questions in relation to seasonal employment. I
commend the minister of human resources for responding to
these concerns and for creating a special committee to study the
question of seasonal workers.
[Translation]
The committee in question is addressing a serious concern of
Atlantic Canada. Special attention must be given to seasonal
workers. Social program reform is not only important, it is
necessary. I encourage all Canadians to become involved in the
consultation process and to express their opinion on the future of
our social programs.
_____________________________________________
6980
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, very serious allegations have been made recently
about CSIS's infiltration activities. Now come revelations from
a former officer of the Communications Security Establishment,
another federal agency, who in a book published this week
mentions the existence of a special unit called ``French
Problem'' that is responsible for intercepting Quebec
government members' telephone calls or having these calls
intercepted by foreign services.
For his part, the Prime Minister said yesterday in this House
that since he entered politics, he knew nothing about any spying
on the sovereignist movement by federal services.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the
government pretend, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, not to
be aware of federal agents spying on Quebec's pro-sovereignty
movement, when the reports of the Keable and MacDonald
commissions showed the extent of the RCMP's illegal activities
in the 1970s, much activities as planting bombs, burning barns
and stealing the Parti Quebecois's membership lists?
6981
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the
attention of the House to what the Prime Minister said
yesterday, that the activities of the CSE are totally subject to
Canadian laws, including the Criminal Code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, and they obey the law.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister from her seat
clearly assure this House that the federal intelligence services,
CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, have not
and do not engage in electronic eavesdropping on elected
officials and members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti
Quebecois and the Quebec sovereignty movement and do not
have others engage in such activities for them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the activities
of the CSE are in no way directed against Canadians, including
people involved in politics.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, we note that Mike Frost's revelations report that
interception services do each other favours, some spying on the
ministers of others, and so on.
We all noted that the Deputy Prime Minister carefully avoided
giving the clear, specific assurance which I asked of her. On
such a serious subject involving respect for the law and
democracy in Canada, a refusal to deny is the same as an
admission.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us clearly
if we must conclude from the evasive answer she just gave that
the federal services are now engaged in such electronic
eavesdropping?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in no way was I
evasive. What I said and I repeat, in French and in English, if the
hon. member cannot understand, is that the CSE is subject to
Canadian law, including the Criminal Code, and to all Canadian
laws. They do not take any action against people in Canada who
are in politics.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I wish to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the
Communications Security Establishment is not accountable to
any review agency. The disclosures made by a CSE spy, Mike
Frost, raise the whole issue of electronic surveillance of the
sovereignist movement by federal services.
Why is it that, unlike CSIS, the Communications Security
Establishment, whose budget is estimated at $200 million a
year-yes, Mr. Speaker, $200 million a year-is not subject to
any external parliamentary control whatsoever? Who monitors
the spies in this country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said it many
times and I will repeat it for those who did not understand. The
CSE is subject to the Criminal Code of Canada. It does not spy
on Canadians or on those who are involved in politics, whether
they belong to the Parti Quebecois, the Liberal Party or any
other political party. Is that clear enough?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that,
given the recent and very serious allegations concerning both
CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, the
government should set up a royal commission of inquiry, as
requested, to shed light once and for all on these allegations?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many books are
circulating this week. One is by Claude Morin, one by Joe Clark,
and there are others. Are we here to say that all that Claude
Morin writes is true? We in the government want to deal in facts.
[English]
We want to deal in facts. If the member is interested in
slinging the mud, if he believes every word that is written in
every book that is flying around town-
The Speaker: Order. My colleagues, I would again ask you to
please not use any props while you are in the House of
Commons. It just leads to bigger and bigger props.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a funny thing happened on the way to the health care
forum.
The provincial governments which have jurisdiction over
health care and pay the bulk of the bills are not being allowed to
lead the health care reform process. They are sitting on the
sidelines.
The Prime Minister would not even agree to share the
chairmanship of the forum with the premier of Saskatchewan,
the province that pioneered medicare.
My question to the Prime Minister is when is the federal
government going to stop alienating the provinces by pretending
to lead the health care reform process and let them lead the
reform of social programs for which they are constitutionally
responsible?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government spends $16 billion of hard earned Canadian
taxpayers' money on the health care system. We have a direct
interest and a
6982
direct fiduciary responsibility. I am sure that the Reform Party
agrees with that.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has declined to notice that
the provinces spend 46 per cent of the money spent on health
care and private individuals and insurance companies pay 28 per
cent and the federal government is now a junior player.
We are wondering who is going to supply the fiscal facts of
life at the health care forum. The Prime Minister and the health
minister are not strong on math, and the finance minister is here.
My question is for the finance minister. The finance minister
has said that everything is on the table in his spending review.
This is the new fiscal reality. Can the finance minister confirm
that federal health care spending is on the table and is the Prime
Minister communicating this fact at the health care forum?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things
that we have made very clear is that not only do we need smaller
government, we need smarter government and better
government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard, Lib.): They are applauding
me and not the leader of the opposition. You had better watch
out, Preston.
The reason for the health care forum is that we recognize full
well that costs have to be kept under control and we have to be
able to deliver services better. We also understand very
clearly-because this is the party that brought medicare and
hospital insurance in-that we are going to protect the social
programs of this country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I had a call from a woman in Saskatchewan the other
week. The hospital in her community was being completely shut
down because of lack of funding. She and others in her
community wanted the option of continuing to use the facility
even if this required some fee for service. What she wanted is
expressly prohibited by the Canada Health Act.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is if the federal
government cannot maintain funding for health care, will it at
least give provinces and communities options other than
shutting down hospitals by opening up and reforming the
Canada Health Act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused
because on the one hand we hear every day from the Reform
Party how important it is to be responsible for Canadian tax
dollars.
In the light of that responsibility the Prime Minister has
committed to a national examination of how to spend our $16
billion federal health care investment better.
The leader of the third party tells us we should leave it up to
the provinces. Unfortunately that is not what his critic said. On
January 27 in Hansard, page 472, Mr. Grant Hill said the federal
government should be standing up and setting national
standards for our health care.
Who is speaking for the Reform Party, the leader or the health
critic?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday,
in answer to a question in this House, the Prime Minister left
open the possibility that he might renege on his commitment not
to increase taxes when he said, and I quote:
-if people do not want us to make cuts, the alternative is to raise taxes.
So, I ask the Minister of Finance: Are we to understand that
the Minister of Finance is contemplating a tax increase for the
middle class since, except for cutting indiscriminately in social
programs, he is unable to cut where it is really necessary, that is
in the government's operating expenditures?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister was very clear yesterday when he said that we really
want to lower the deficit by reducing government spending.
However, if we cannot reach our goal that way, we will
definitely consider other alternatives, including tax measures.
Again, I invite the hon. member to make constructive
suggestions and I ask him this question: Does he really think that
we will eliminate a $40-billion deficit merely by reducing the
government's operating expenditures, which amount to $20
billion? The hon. member, who is an economist, should learn
how to add.
(1430)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already made seven recommendations to the
Minister of Finance. If he wants another one, I will tell him not
to raise taxes, as promised by the Prime Minister during the
election campaign. He must not do it.
How can the Minister of Finance claim, as he has been doing
for four days, that all taxpayers will have to help reduce the
deficit when he excludes at the outset the major corporations
and the richest families in the country by not taking all
appropriate means to ensure that these people pay their fair
share of taxes, nothing more but nothing less?
6983
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I say to the
hon. member that he should read the budget tabled in February.
He will see that we closed loopholes, such as the $100,000
capital gains exemption, and that we launched the most
comprehensive reform ever regarding corporate tax. We closed
all kinds of loopholes for corporations. The hon. member
should really do his homework.
He says that we must not tax and we must not make cuts, but
we have to eliminate the deficit. The problem with the Bloc
Quebecois is that it does not know how to add, how to multiply
or how to subtract. It only know how to divide.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was really
nice to be referred to by personal name by the Deputy Prime
Minister in the House today. Might I express what I actually said
in
Hansard. I said there was a place for the federal government
in national standards as long as they paid the bill.
The Prime Minister this morning addressed the national
health care forum and he stated: ``The forum is not an
intergovernmental body''. A good sense of humour. ``This body
is missing arms, legs and head''.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that this $12 million is
being spent to make a minor payer look like a major player?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has
acknowledged that the national government has a role to play.
We are footing the bill to the tune of $16 billion.
On the one hand he is suggesting that we should have no
national input, and on the other hand his leader is saying: ``Turn
it over to the provinces''.
What we want and what the Prime Minister is trying to do is to
go to the Canadian Hospital Association, to go to the Canadian
Nurses Association, to involve the Canadian Public Health
Association, to involve the players who are delivering the
service on the ground, to see if there is a way that we can spend
our $16 billion investment a bit smarter.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): And that will take four
years, Mr. Speaker? Here is the format of the forum that should
have been: short and sweet; dialogue from all the provinces,
other nations, nurses, physio, disabled and natives; everyone
present; and specific goals. All MPs would then consult with
their constituencies. The time frame: about a month; results:
dramatic.
This is the consultation Canadians want. This is the
consultation Canadians deserve. This is the consultation
Canadians need. Will the government give us that kind of
consultation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that when the Prime Minister launched the promise of
the forum as he did in the red book, he did so with the express
purpose of bringing the stakeholders around the table.
That is why the Consumers Association of Canada has
endorsed the forum. The Canadian Public Health Association
has endorsed the forum. The Canadian Medical Association has
endorsed the forum. The Canadian Nurses Association has
endorsed the forum. The Canadian Hospital Association has
endorsed the program.
The players are around the table. We think this $12 million
investment will yield dividends in a system that is currently
costing us $16 billion. Is that money not being well spent?
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Natural
Resources. We are informed that the shipyard in Marystown,
Newfoundland, was unable to deliver on a $35-million
subcontract for the Hibernia megaproject. Without calling for
tenders, the contract was transferred directly to the shipyards at
Saint John Shipbuilding Limited in New Brunswick.
My question is this: Would the Minister of Natural Resources
confirm that this $35-million contract was transferred directly,
without tender, to Saint John Shipbuilding Limited in New
Brunswick?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the hon. member the
process by which that decision was taken. It was a decision of
the Hibernia management board. That board is one on which the
federal government has one representative out of five. That is by
virtue of our 8.5 per cent equity interest in the Hibernia project.
The federal government does not have the intention of
micromanaging projects like Hibernia. The decision was a day
to day management decision taken by a properly authorized
board.
6984
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, this is all very interesting. However, considering that
MIL Davie already bid on this contract in 1993, unlike Saint
John Shipbuilding which never bid on the contract at all, will the
Government of Canada, as a full partner in Hibernia, need I
recall, exert the necessary pressure to reverse this decision and
give the contract to MIL Davie, or will it do everything it can to
close down MIL Davie, which might gladden the heart of the
Minister of Transport?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the federal government
has no intention of involving itself in the day to day
management of the Hibernia project.
However, if my hon. friend would like to discuss with the
Hibernia management consortium the reasons for its decision in
relation to moving part of that contract, not the entire $35
million contract, to the Saint John shipyard, I will be happy to
provide him with a name after question period.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
At 2 a.m. this morning it was reported that convicted
murderers, Allan Kinsella and Serge Damien, escaped from the
Bath minimum security prison.
Allan Kinsella has 29 adult convictions, previous escapes, a
history of parole violations, and was recently denied early
parole under section 745 because a jury felt that he was still a
threat to society.
Why would this convicted murderer be incarcerated in
anything less than maximum security?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a correctional service investigation under way
into the circumstances of the escape. I am asking for a report on
the classification of the prisoner who I understand has been in a
medium security institution since about 1986.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
although it was recorded at 2 a.m. today, the escape actually
occurred at 11 p.m. last night when the murderers placed a
ladder against an alarm fence. The escape went undetected for
three and a half hours because no one took the time to check the
alarm.
Lives are at stake in my riding because of this escape. The
Solicitor General is responsible for what happens in prisons.
What action will he take to ensure that it never happens again?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have asked for an immediate, thorough investigation
into the matter. In light of the investigation I will take all
necessary steps to deal with any problems that are identified.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec. We would like to remind him that the
Eastern Quebec Development Plan affects 5,800 woodlot
owners in that area. The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the
same questions for months, but the federal government has yet
to confirm its intentions regarding the Eastern Quebec
Development Plan.
What is the government waiting for to go ahead and extend the
plan until a regional forestry development agency is created?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that
the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec
and I will be meeting with eastern woodlot owners, municipal
development corporations and representations from that region
on Monday, October 31.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has been telling us for several months now
that she is going to meet with these people, but she keeps on
postponing her visit. Do you realize that your lack of action, the
inaction of your government, is creating an unhealthy climate of
uncertainty for the 5,800 woodlot owners in these regions? They
are very worried.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me simply reiterate that my department
and I have been in discussions with the woodlot owners from
eastern Quebec over the past 10 months.
As I have already indicated this afternoon, the minister for
regional development for Quebec and I will be meeting with the
woodlot owners. We are very aware of the importance of the
issue for eastern Quebec and we will be working on options for
the future.
6985
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
The Canadian Wheat Board has come under attack in recent
weeks, attacks designed deliberately to weaken the board and
force farmers to accept a dual marketing system.
What assurance could the minister give prairie farmers that
the government continues to strongly support the Canadian
Wheat Board and opposes a dual marketing system for wheat?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is a
strong pillar of our grains industry. The record shows, I believe,
that the board has done an extraordinarily good job. However
there is controversy among farmers about marketing systems
and about the role of the board.
We need to have a legitimate and respected mechanism to
respond to that controversy. I am in the process now of selecting
up to five eminent westerners to lead this effort. I hope to be able
to announce them and their specific mandate by about the end of
October.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Goodale: It is interesting to hear the reaction of the
Reform Party which only likes to shout in the rabble and not hear
the facts of the case. That is what is wrong with the debate about
the Canadian Wheat Board because of the volume level of those
who would rather not let the other side have their say.
We are trying to establish a forum where there can be a
thorough exchange of information, where the discussion can be
structured and cross-examined, and where technical detailed
information can be reviewed and put forward.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Supreme Court ruled that extreme drunkenness is a
viable excuse for rape.
Citing this ruling on Tuesday in an Ontario court, a drunken
man was given a light sentence for sexually assaulting a woman.
It appears that he will probably serve the sentence in a halfway
house while still going to work.
On October 3, I asked the Minister of Justice what his plans
were to eliminate such nonsense. The parliamentary secretary
said they would come forward with a report.
I have two questions: Where is this report and what are its
recommendations?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, this is a very serious question.
The Minister of Justice is concerned with it. He is taking it very
seriously. The department is working on it very carefully.
(1445 )
It is not possible to make new laws in a few days. Good laws
are going to take a little while but I can assure the House that this
will not take any longer than absolutely necessary.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are growing tired of hearing the
response of more deliberations and general intentions. They
want action. The Reform Party is prepared to introduce an
amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with the intoxication
offence. Would the government give unanimous consent today
for speedy passage of this amendment?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's offer for assistance
but it is very difficult to make an amendment to something that
the justice department is working on and has not yet presented to
the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Following the Estonia disaster, Finland and Sweden ordered
their ship owners to weld the bow doors on this type of ferry. In
Canada, four ferries similar to the Estonia face deep-sea
weather conditions that are as difficult as those on the Baltic.
One of these ferries, the Bluenose, is operated by the federal
government under the Bahamian flag.
Since several experts recognize that this type of ship has
major safety risks, can the minister explain to us what he has
done to avoid a tragedy with the four ships in service in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course everyone who knows about the tragedy which
happened overseas understands the importance of the hon.
member's question. We dealt with the issue immediately. We
know that the British Columbia government was concerned
about its ferries which might present problems. The four ferries,
the four ships to which the hon. member referred have been
6986
evaluated. This very afternoon, I will be meeting with the
president of Marine Atlantic to assure myself that the necessary
action is being taken in Canada.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
since the Caribou and the Bluenose have already suffered storm
damage to their outer door, does the minister not believe that it
is his duty as Minister of Transport to take much more
significant action than simple tests and checks?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all understand the importance of this question. It is
a very serious matter. We recognize that technology could have
some problems.
As I indicated, I am meeting with the president of Marine
Atlantic this afternoon. We have had the Coast Guard do an
evaluation of the four vessels in question. The only thing I can
hope for is that where these vessels travel as they conduct their
conveyance of passengers and vehicles that they never run into
the kind of hot wind the hon. member often comes up with.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Solicitor General.
Investigations after the fact are meaningless. This is the 11th
hour for Helen Leadley and her family who live in my riding.
This is also the fifth time that I have risen in this House to
challenge the rationale for giving Robert Paul Thompson an
escorted temporary absence tomorrow.
Will the Solicitor General explain to victims everywhere why
such a dangerous criminal who has killed before while out on a
day pass has been given the opportunity to do so again?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this temporary absence is being made on the decision
of the head of the institution, on the recommendation of the
National Parole Board.
I am informed the prisoner will be out for a two hour visit in
shackles and leg irons, escorted by two guards. I hope the hon.
member will agree that the risk is under control.
(1450 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with nothing. I am asking, I am beseeching the Solicitor
General who has the legal opportunity to intervene in this
situation. I have had a legal opinion given to me and indeed he
can do this. Why will he not do this before another innocent
victim is murdered? Excuses of shackles mean nothing.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern. Like her, I do
not want to see risk created by such absences for anyone. My
understanding of the legal position is not the same as the hon.
member's.
I again repeat to her that this individual will be out for a
couple of hours in shackles and under the escort of two
uniformed guards. I hope the hon. member on reflection will
again be willing to consider that the risk is under control.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The discussion paper on social security reform could have
serious implications for seasonal workers. This is a critical issue
in Atlantic Canada where many people have no choice but
seasonal employment. What measures is the minister taking to
ensure that the UI changes will be fair to seasonal workers?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question
and also congratulate her on the excellent work she has been
doing on social security reform.
A working group has been created by the government on
seasonal work and UI. It is formed to look at practical solutions
to the concerns of seasonal workers and the industry. The
members represent a good regional balance as well as the
interests of both seasonal and non-seasonal workers and
employers. Its role is to engage interested parties from business,
labour, industry and associations to provide guidance in this
particular issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. On January 1, 1995, more than six months after
Newsworld, RDI, the new French-language continuous
televised news reporting service that francophones across
Canada had been promised is expected to start broadcasting.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that the CBC
does not currently have the funds required for RDI to start
broadcasting, as planned, on January 1, 1995?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no information at hand that would
allow me to confirm any such thing. However, the Chairman of
the CBC is committed to negotiating with cable operators for the
6987
distribution of the RDI. I am keeping track of the negotiations
and, so far, they are progressing well. This means the service
should be in operation early next year.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, B.Q.):
Since the hon. minister is kept so well informed, Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question concerns cable operators. Can the
minister confirm whether there is any truth in the rumour that
cable operators have already asked to distribute RDI at no cost
for the first three months?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not interfere in negotiations between
the CBC and cable operators. I will see where they lead. Then,
we will see whether or not the CRTC will follow up the CBC's
request for mandatory distribution.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Today in his hometown a rally is being conducted by farmers
who want more options on how they market their grain. Could
the minister please explain to this House why he has decided not
to be present to listen to these farmers?
(1455)
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member only tells part
of the story. In fact there are two rallies taking place in Regina
today, one in favour of his point of view and one in favour of the
other point of view. He should be a little more even handed.
I was invited to attend one of those meetings. I indicated that
because the House of Commons was sitting and because this
happened to be a cabinet day and a busy agenda from the point of
view of agricultural interests, it would not be possible for me to
be in Regina.
I did say to the people who invited me that I would be prepared
to meet with their representatives at another mutually
convenient time in the near future. I also said that if they had a
written record of their proceedings I would be more than happy
to receive it and consider it.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find this ironic. Every time I bring up a question to
this minister in the House on issues like car allocation or
non-performance of railways he says: ``I have consulted all
players''.
Does this minister consider farmers non-players? Why is he
not listening to them today?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question refers to some
farmers. It is my intention in this very important debate about
grain marketing systems to make sure that I listen carefully and
accurately to all farmers. I would advise the Reform Party to do
the same.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, N.D.P): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Asia-Pacific. It concerns the upcoming visit of the Prime
Minister to China as leader of a trade delegation.
I have before me a document which was prepared by the
deputy chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
It documents widespread human rights-
The Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his
question without the use of a prop. Just put the question please.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, will the secretary of state assure
Canadians that the Prime Minister will vigorously and publicly
raise human rights concerns including China's arms sales and
nuclear tests during his upcoming visit to China on November 4?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
his question.
Human rights is indeed a very big item in the government's
foreign policy agenda. In all possible fora in multilateral
institutions, Canada has never backed out from taking a very
strong stand on human rights issues.
However we never believe that confrontation is the best way
to go. Canada has been involved behind the scenes in many
programs dealing with human rights issues in China, through
CIDA, through co-operation, dialogues and so on. These actions
will help the government in China to understand and respect
human rights.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As stated in the green book on social security reform, in this
age of ever changing technology and work environment training
is key to getting and keeping a job.
6988
In light of recent and pending layoffs in my riding, can the
parliamentary secretary explain how this government will
ensure that laid off employees obtain effective and timely
retraining?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question
and his concern about seasonal workers.
I would like to make it very clear that the key objectives of the
social security review are to help Canadians get jobs and keep
jobs, to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society
and to do that in a sustainable manner.
In the green book we speak about employment enhancement
programs that include training and upgrading. It is essential for
us to upgrade the skills of the Canadian public so that we can
compete in the ever competing world in the 21st century.
* * *
(1500 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, I draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Wen Shizhen, governor of the
province of Liaonning, People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, as is
customary on Thursday, I wish to ask the Leader of the
Government in the House what the business of the House will be
in the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would now like to present to this House the weekly
business statement.
This afternoon the House will continue its consideration of
Bill C-54 respecting the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age
Security Act. If this is completed the House will revert to
consideration of the departmental reorganization bills: C-46,
industry; C-52, government services; and C-53, Canadian
heritage. We will follow that with report stage and third reading
of Bill C-36 regarding the Split Lake agreement.
Tomorrow the House will begin second reading of Bill C-55
regarding Yukon surface rights. If this is completed the House
will return to the same back-up list I have set for today.
On Monday next the House will resume the debate on social
security reform.
Also, I am hereby allotting Tuesday as an opposition day.
On Wednesday the House will resume its consideration of
those uncompleted items I have already mentioned.
This completes my statement, Madam Speaker.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion and explanatory notes relating to the implementation of
the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, and I
ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of
this motion.
_____________________________________________
6988
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, B.Q.):
Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-54
is particularly significant because it substantially changes some
aspects of four pieces of legislation that are ultimately central to
income support for the most disadvantaged in our society.
As the Official Opposition, we had an opportunity to say that
we see in this bill a number of positive points but we still have
three concerns which I will be happy to discuss with you.
Before being interrupted in a friendly way by our Speaker, I
had explained to the hon. members that we were happy with two
positive aspects of the bill and I was about to discuss the third
point, which will give OAS and spouse's allowance recipients an
avenue of administrative recourse without them having to
appeal to another court. We agree with this effort to simplify
administration. We are also pleased that this bill allows
recipients to settle overpayments quickly and to avoid more red
tape.
(1505)
We have three main concerns with this bill. Our first concern
lies at the centre of democratic life and concerns access to
personal information that would be extended to other
departments. This concern-that the bill before us allows other
departments and agencies to access information on
recipients-is the subject of an amendment to the bill.
6989
It must be understood-and I think it is important for our
viewers to understand it as well-that this bill adds to the list
of departments and agencies that will have access to the
information given by program beneficiaries. This list will grow
so much that even Canada Post will have access to this
information, although it has not been explained to us why
Canada Post would need this type of information. We think
there has been an oversight, a lack of accuracy which, in the
long term, could lead to abuse.
The list of departments and agencies which will be able to
access this information is also expanded. The result is that the
Correctional Service of Canada, the Commissioner of the
RCMP, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General and any
other person designated as a health care professional will have
access to that information.
No justification has been made for expanding that list. Yet,
such a measure could lead to abuse and to violations of the
principles of democracy.
I draw your attention to the fact that the Correctional Service
will even be allowed to prosecute inmates who are pensioners to
ensure that these people continue to pay off debts incurred in the
past. We would have liked the act to provide more details where
it authorizes any person designated by the minister as a health
care professional to have access to information by name.
Why not be more specific? Why not say exactly what we are
talking about? Why be so vague? You will agree with me that
past experience has demonstrated the importance, for the
legislator, to specify who, and in what specific circumstances,
can have access to such information. I see the Minister of
Revenue nodding his head. Heaven knows how important access
to important information by name is for his department.
We would have liked this bill to provide some bench marks, to
be more specific regarding the managers and the officials who
will have access to such information by name, as it concerns the
private lives of individuals. In fact, we know from past
experience that failure to do so by the legislator results in abuse
which, in turn, leads to representations before administrative
tribunals or courts of law.
This is the reason for the amendment tabled by the hon.
member, and I hope that this House will adopt it. In fact, I will
read that amendment again, so that viewers can understand what
the Bloc Quebecois is trying to do.
(1510)
Our position is that we agree with the essence of this bill. We
agree that it provides for a substantial reduction in
administrative procedures. However, considering some of the
concerns we have about the bill, we ask that:
``this House declines to give second reading reading to Bill C-54, An Act to amend
the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special
Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it does not provide a
penalty under the Criminal Code for the disclosure of personal information
concerning beneficiaries to persons who are not legally authorized to such
information pursuant to Access to Privileged Information.''
There is quite a contradiction here. We have legislation that is
intended to protect the privacy of Canadians, and we have
legislation before the House today that fails to provide any
mechanisms for laying charges or imposing formal sanctions, in
the case of public employees who might be guilty of
unauthorized disclosure of information.
You do not have to be a member of the Canadian public
service to know that this has been known to occur in the past.
Why did the minister not propose mechanisms to prevent such
practices?
So this is a serious concern. Madam Speaker, this is a
fundamental error which should be corrected, and that is what
we are doing, as part of the responsibilities and duties we have
as an Official Opposition that takes those duties very seriously.
Our second cause for concern is that clearly, Bill C-54, in
addition to streamlining certain administrative procedures,
reflects an austerity policy the government claims to support, an
approach reflected in somewhat haphazard cuts of up to $7
billion over the next few years, cuts which, as they were in the
past, will be at the expense of the less well-off in our society.
Our listeners and members of this House should recall that in
the past, those who failed to apply for old age security benefits
within the prescribed period could do so retroactively for up to a
maximum of five years, which gave people considerable leeway.
Today, the government wants to reduce this period to one year.
Aside from the somewhat shortsighted, financial considerations
that might deprive Canadians of the basic right to get their
pension benefits retroactively over a period of more than one
year, there is no indication of what this is supposed to
accomplish, since it is not a measure that will benefit Canadians.
The government is getting ready to put an end to the five-year
retroactivity provision which is in force until this bill is passed.
In an effort to balance its budget, the government wants to
reduce, arbitrarily and without giving any explanation,
retroactive payments to pensioners. It is estimated that up to
1,200,000 people availed themselves of this right to recover
retroactively their Old Age Security pensions.
This is an important issue. There are many reasons why
people may have to apply retroactively for old age pensions.
Instead of getting five years of retroactive benefits they will
only get one, and we believe that it is unfair. We are totally
against it.
There is another administrative measure aimed at balancing
the budget we disagree with because we believe that it is not in
the best interests of our fellow citizens. Let us keep in mind that
6990
when we are talking about Old Age Security, we are not talking
about wealthy people.
(1515)
We are talking for the most part about people who are not
financially independent. We are talking about people who are
depend largely on transfers from the government, namely Old
Age Security.
Therefore, the other point about which the opposition is in
disagreement with the government is the elimination of the
deadline for the recovery of overpayments. We have to realize
that, when you are dealing with social legislation, any kind of
legislation under which civil servants, managers, must review
applications, interpret the act and justify their decisions, human
nature being what it is, it might happen that, even with the best
of intentions-and we do not doubt the good intentions of civil
servants in Quebec, in Ottawa or elsewhere-overpayments are
made. It means that people are given rights they were not
entitled to, in the strict sense of the law.
From now on, the government will be able to ask that money
paid in excess be reimbursed and there will be no time limit for
this; to use a legal expression, there will be no statute of
limitations. In the past, when overpayments were made to
recipients, we could not ask for the amounts owing to be
remitted after two years had gone by. Today, the government is
assuming the right-a right basically unprecedented in social
law-to recover overpayments at any point in time.
This means that, under this legislation, if someone incurred a
debt 15 years ago and an erroneous decision was made
concerning this person, we could recover this money. I can see
my hon. colleague nodding. I guess she agrees with me. It is
always a pleasure to receive support from the opposition, a
support as unusual as it is unsubstantial. No limit will be put on
establishing overpayments. This is a practice that hardly seems
to be in the interest of our fellow citizens.
We have concerns about another thing. We realize that this
bill provides for an appeal procedure enabling our fellow
citizens who receive old age security and a pension under the
Canada Pension Plan to appeal, to go before an administrative
tribunal and challenge decisions that were made and that they
disagree with. Such review tribunals are commonplace, of
course, in administrative and social law.
There are review tribunals for the CSST, for income security,
for the motor vehicle insurance bureau, and that is how it should
be. We are not concerned so much about-seeing that I have but
one minute remaining, I will make this my conclusion, as I was
about to close- the existence of appeal mechanisms, as about
the minister having the power to discontinue the payments of
benefits when no decision has been made under the appeal
procedure.
Therefore, while recognizing that some administrative
adjustments may be in order, we cannot support this bill without
the amendment put forth by the Official Opposition, which
would have the effect of really limiting the actions and powers
of those who will be handling personal information data banks.
So, we have every confidence that the government will approve
the opposition's proposal. I thank you for the speaking time I
was given.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, B.Q.): Madam Speaker, I
listened very attentively to my colleague and I would have a
question for him. Just now, he told us about $7 billion in cuts to
the poorest people. I would like him to give us some alternatives
to these cuts. Where else could one cut, except at the expense of
the very poor? I would like the hon. member to give this
government some alternatives.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, as you see, this is a very
relevant question, which shows us how deeply committed our
colleague is. We have always had quite a clear position on this.
(1520)
The opposition party operates on the principle that full
employment has been possible in small countries which had all
the instruments they needed to bring it about, but it is not
possible in the Canadian context since two levels of government
take action which is often contradictory.
We see now that countries with an unemployment rate of 3, 4
or 5 per cent, which is called frictional unemployment and is
acceptable, are those which have acquired mechanisms for joint
action and co-operation. They have been able to bring together
around a table at the national level people from labour,
management and professional corporations to set
macro-economic objectives.
Of course, such a solution is not possible in the Canadian
context because two levels of government are in competition
without regard for efficiency.
The second solution that we think we can contribute concerns
a thorny issue which is a disgrace for this government, namely
family trusts. We know that plugging this loophole could save
billions of dollars.
Finally, when it comes to corporate taxation, we see that
companies pay less tax in Canada than in other OECD countries.
We think that corporation taxation should be reviewed. If Mr.
Martin were a courageous man-and we on this side of the
House long ago realized that the Minister of Finance does not
really qualify as courageous-he could have reviewed corporate
taxation in February so that the government could collect the
amounts which it is now lacking.
We have three approaches: one involves a political
reconfiguration, one that will be possible when two sovereign
states with all the powers they need can deal with each other as
complete equals; this means sovereignty for Quebec and a
redefinition of what English Canada should be. The second
approach of course involves the tools at the finance minister's
disposal, if he has political courage and integrity. Certainly,
6991
when you form a national government as the Liberal Party does
and you take money from your election fund so that your party
can live, you get that money from the private sector and you
have close ties to those people, so it is not easy for a finance
minister to raise money for his party and also to revise the tax
system in favour of the less fortunate. However, in Quebec, we
do not have that problem, since we have passed legislation on
democratic financing.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask
my colleague if reducing the deadline from five to one year
indicates, in his opinion, that the government is contemplating
cuts to retirement plans?
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
key question asked by the hon. member for Lévis. I would like to
point out that the hon. member for Lévis has always shown
affection and concern for the less fortunate, for whom he has
been one of the most distinguished spokespersons since he was
elected last October. I want to commend him for that.
Our concern about reducing the deadline from five to one year
is, who will pay for this? Who can claim retroactively an OAS
cheque or a cheque-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Sorry, sir, but your time
is up.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security
Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special
Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, any
sane, reasonable scrutiny of this bill would very quickly indicate
to almost any informed reader that this has to be what has
become known in Parliament as comma legislation, that is to say
legislation which seeks to make certain technical changes but
substantively has very little impact.
(1525 )
There is a need for comma legislation, technical legislation,
to tidy up the business, to make it of more service to the people it
is purporting to serve. That is the reality, this is in effect comma
legislation. It is legislation that will seek to do a number of
important but relatively minor things in the scheme of things.
That is not to say they should not be done. I support the bill
and in a moment I will state two or three reasons why I support
the bill. However, if we accepted as the reality of the bill and
then listen to some of my friends opposite, we would wonder if
we are both talking about the same piece of legislation.
As I listened to a bit a of the debate this morning for some
strange reason I found myself deciding that what I needed to do
was reread an old poem that I learned and taught in high school
called ``Matilda''.
An hon. member: ``Waltzing Matilda''?
Mr. Simmons: No, not ``Waltzing Matilda'', the other
``Matilda''. I will not read it all, just a couple of lines that are
very much to the point. Matilda, growing tired of play and
finding she was left alone, went tiptoe to the telephone and
summoned the fire brigade.
We know the story. It was a false alarm. There was no fire. She
did it so many times that a few weeks later when her aunt was
away at the theatre, that night a fire did break out: ``You should
have heard Matilda shout. You should have heard her scream and
bawl''. We know the rest: ``For every time she shouted fire, they
only shouted little liar''. They did not believe her because too
often she had used the dramatic overstatement to draw attention
to her situation. Why did they not believe her? Along the way by
overstating the simple and the untrue she had worn out her
credibility.
In a more modern idiom, she was Chicken Little: ``The sky is
falling. These big bad Liberals over there want to put a comma
in the legislation. The sky is falling, the world is coming to an
end''. That is what we have been hearing for the last couple of
days.
I say to my friends in the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois that I spent some time in opposition provincially and
federally. If they want to check the record I said some fairly
dramatic things from time to time. One has to learn that there is a
time for making dramatic statements and there is a time for
standing up and calling things exactly as they are.
Let us look at this particular bill. This is no occasion for
pulling your hair or threatening the end of reality or saying the
sky is falling or screaming fire when there is no fire. There is no
fire here at all.
The Unemployment Insurance Act would be amended here,
for example. Listen how drastically this foul government wants
to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, then decide
whether the sky is falling.
Bill C-54 has no impact whatsoever on eligibility criteria or
benefit structure of the UI program. What else is there in the
program other than the benefits and the eligibility? It has no
impact on those matters at all. Here is what it would do, though.
It does contain one little amendment, giving the minister the
discretion to disclose UI client information only to the
commissioner of the RCMP for the purpose of conducting
investigations and prosecution, for purposes of ensuring
compliance with the law. That is the amendment. That is the sky
is falling amend-
6992
ment we have been hearing about for the last day or so in this
particular bill.
On the proposed amendment in this bill to the Children's
Special Allowance Act, no change again in eligibility criteria or
the benefit structure of the CSA program-not a wit of change
proposed in this.
(1530 )
There are two amendments though, both advanced for reasons
of administration. I believe hon. members are familiar with
those. I can read them into the record if they wish.
Let us come to the question of changes for OAS, old age
security, and the Canada pension plan. Again we read that the
government's sin here is in finding ways to make it a little less
onerous for the people out there who are receiving these
benefits, instead of having them fill in forms ad nauseam every
year as they are required to do now in order to qualify for those
supplements. That is what the bill is about. You would wonder if
you listened to some of the speeches.
The bill is what I called earlier some comma legislation. I
have some advice to give to my friends in all parties including
myself. Save the fire call for when there is a fire. When there is
some legislation here that we have some real discomfort with
then get up and say so. Then people will recognize that we know
what we are talking about. Screaming fire when there is no fire
creates false insecurities out there. People are asking: ``What
are they doing to the old age security?''.
I will tell them what we are doing with the old age security. I
will tell the people watching exactly what we are doing to the old
age security in this bill. Instead of that silly form people have to
fill in every year, we are going to see to it that they have to fill it
in less often, sometimes only once. That is what the bill is about.
What are we doing to the UI? If somebody is out there trying
to beat the law, we are going to make it harder for them. If this
bill passes, we are going to allow the commissioner of the
RCMP to have access to client information for the purpose of
prosecuting a person if they are in that particular category.
I identify with those objectives. I have no difficulty at all with
those objectives. That is why it gives me great honour and
pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-54, because when passed the
amendments here will directly benefit and assist over 4 million
Canadian seniors, in particular the 1.4 million seniors who are
currently receiving the spouse's allowance or the guaranteed
income supplement, commonly known as the GIS.
The proposed amendments will allow these seniors, the
majority of whom are women, to receive the benefits to which
they are entitled with a minimum of red tape. Let us look at a few
of the features of the programs we are talking about. Then let us
look at why these amendments although small in one way are
nevertheless important.
The foundation of the retirement system is the old age
security benefit. The OAS pension is paid to individuals 65
years of age and over who meet certain residence requirements.
That benefit though is not enough for certain seniors. That is the
reason we have additional benefits which are income tested.
The GIS is a monthly income tested benefit payable to seniors
with low income, while the spouse's allowance is a monthly
income tested benefit payable to the 60 to 64-year old spouse of
an OAS pensioner as well as to low income widowed persons in
that same age bracket of 60 to 64 years.
The amount of these additional benefits is determined on a
sliding scale of income with the maximum paid only to those
pensioners with no income other than the basic old age security
pension. While having outside income can reduce the amount of
the supplement or the allowance, this reduction does not
completely offset the benefit since only one dollar of
supplement is lost for every two of other income. This ensures
that pensioners will be better off for having saved and prepared
for retirement.
The GIS and the spouse's allowance are both income tested
benefits, and so they are normally based on a recipient's income
in the preceding calendar year in accordance with the Income
Tax Act. For example, the benefits for the period from April
1994 to March 1995 are based on the income for 1993.
(1535 )
Each year before the benefit can be calculated and paid in
April, seniors must fill out a renewal application, including a
complete statement of income. Of course, most seniors also fill
out their income tax form at about that time with the very same
information that they provide on their annual GIS application
form.
There in a nutshell is an example of unnecessary government
red tape, where the senior sits down, paper in hand, fills out a
form putting in certain information related to income and mails
it to the income tax people; then goes over to the other end of the
table and gets another form, using the same pen and putting
down the same answers to the same questions, then mails it off
to the old age security. They wind up in offices almost across the
corridor in Ottawa or wherever these forms go.
While they may appear so, these two systems do not operate in
isolation. The income security branch of Human Resources
Development Canada pays the benefit initially on the basis of
the GIS application. Later on, usually in the fall, it verifies the
income that the client filled out on the application with the
assessed income figures received from Revenue Canada to
determine if the payments to be made are still correct. However,
pensioners often very rightly wonder why they have to give the
6993
information twice and why it takes so long to cross-check the
information.
The amendments to this bill will serve to eliminate some of
that duplication so that in the future not all seniors will have to
fill out the same information twice for two government
departments. As well, it will simplify the process of transferring
information between the departments, which is already allowed
by legislation anyway.
Let me emphasize that the desire to improve and simplify
administration is not confined to one department or set of
programs. Last year, for example, Revenue Canada introduced
three new tax returns for people with straightforward tax
situations and one of these returns was for seniors who meet
certain requirements regarding age, level and type of income.
That return is mailed to people over 65 who have been retired for
at least a year with income under $50,000 and receiving most of
their income from pensions and investments and receiving old
age security benefits.
The simplified tax return which I was just mentioning has
large print and provides preprinted amounts for old age security,
guaranteed income supplement benefits and Canada and Quebec
pension plan benefits. Any lines from the standard tax form that
are not needed by seniors are deleted and the accompanying
guide is easy to read with large print.
I realize that if I read very much more of this I am going to
have everybody sound asleep, including myself, because it is
such ongoing straightforward logical information. I thought I
would read just a little of it to demonstrate to the House that
while some of the speakers have almost had cardiac arrests
telling us about the pitfalls of this legislation, the reality is that
it could not introduce a mild headache let alone a heart attack.
This is a fairly simple bill. Let us get on with it and allow the
government to produce the enabling legislation to simplify
those forms for senior citizens and the other matters which I
have outlined here, administrivia but necessary nevertheless.
The second point, to reiterate, to all of us here in this House
including myself is save the fire screams for fires. I spent
slightly more time in opposition than I did in government and so
I am very much committed to the role of opposition in
government. I happen to believe very firmly that the less
effective an opposition is the less effective government is.
I understand my friends from Elk Island and Okanagan
Centre, I understand that they want to muse on the possibility of
when I will be back in opposition.
(1540 )
I not only happen to accept that possibility but in time would
look forward to it. If it is anything that is more debilitating than
too long in opposition, it is too long in government. That is the
very point I am trying to make to my friends. Good government
consists of a good government bench and a good opposition
bench as well. To put it differently, if we do not have a good
opposition we do not have as effective a government.
One of the mixes of this particular House which is different
than any other chamber that I have been in, both other sessions
here and in the chamber in Newfoundland where I had the
privilege of sitting for 10 years, is that we have a completely
new mix in terms of a party, the Reform Party, which heretofore
had only one seat in the House and the other, the official
opposition, which heretofore had six or seven seats in the House.
Almost the entire opposition bench, not to mention a good many
of the government bench, is here for the first time. That is
refreshing in the context of not getting bogged down in hanging
on to all the old things.
It is a particular challenge when one has to come in here on the
day one arrives and help make good government. Helping make
good government includes being appropriately critical.
Some people talk about the free vote. We have free votes. I am
not being tongue in cheek. We have free votes as do all the other
parties. We are now finding, having been here a year, that most
of our free votes take place in caucus where they should take
place. That is why we are a party and not a conglomerate of 52
members or 54 members or 170 members. We are party because
our real fights take place. If you saw the exchange, Madam
Speaker, I had with a minister in a caucus yesterday you would
wonder why the two of us are still in the same party.
Mr. Hermanson: Tell us about it.
Mr. Simmons: It will cost you but I probably will.
To conclude on this point because it is important for me as a
parliamentarian, there are going to be vociferous, strenuous
debates in this House. I participated in some of them. Whether
colleagues on this side or colleagues on the opposite side, in
order to know where they are coming from we have to know if
they are Matildas or not. We have to know if they scream fire all
the time even when there is no fire. We have to know whether
they flag something when it really needs to be flagged.
I say to those people in the Bloc and in the Reform Party as
well as in my own party that when the day arrives when they spot
something genuinely wrong with the legislation I want to be the
first to know. I hope they will count me as enough of a friend to
tell me so I can be on the side of right.
Sometimes we engage in partisan rhetoric but there comes a
time when you cannot stand with your party because something
is genuinely at odds with what you believe. To have that kind of
rapport with parliamentarians we have to know that they are not
a bunch of Matildas, they are not a bunch of Chicken Littles,
6994
they are not a bunch of people who scream when there is
absolutely no need for screaming.
I have much pleasure in supporting the bill and invite hon.
members of the House to do likewise.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I followed with interest the presentation of the
hon. member for Burin-St. George's. He had the typical
Liberal approach to problems, don't worry, be happy. He was
even discussing cardiac arrest. I am sure if he had a cardiac
arrest he would still be saying: ``Don't worry, be happy, there is
no problem here. Do not bother calling the doctor. We are just
fine and if we are not who cares''.
He was saying there is really not much in this bill, there is no
change. There are a couple of little administrative things here
and there. I am quoting him close enough that he will not protest.
He is saying there are some little minor administrative changes
but basically this bill leaves everything as is with regard to OAS
and CPP and the other issues that it deals with.
I would suggest that is probably the problem. That is why we
are speaking rather energetically about this bill. It is lack of
action. We have seen that from this Liberal government ever
since it took office: ``We are not going to do anything, no
changes. We will diddle around a little, change the
administration, have the appearance on the outside as though we
are doing something, but everything continues as the status
quo''.
The hon. member said we should not be suggesting the sky is
falling and let us not be alarmists. Perhaps the sky is not falling
but I assure the House the foundation is crumbling away and the
whole building will fall in on itself.
(1545 )
The government talked about studying. It is becoming almost
gritting for one to hear the ongoing remarks that we are going to
study this or investigate that. Right now we are having a
conference on health but the players are not there. We have
talked about fish but there are no fish so we are going to study
that. We are studying peacekeeping and defence yet we have no
plan. Now we are diddling around with OAS and CPP but we are
not really coming to grips with the issue. The foundation is still
crumbling.
I wonder how we can study so much and still be so
unintelligent and not know what to do about the problem.
I suggest to the member, rather than lecturing the Reform
Party about free votes, he look at the seriousness of the situation
and be concerned about his constituents who may not have OAS
or CPP because while he is looking for the sky to fall, the
foundation is crumbling away beneath him.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to respond to the fact that
we have a younger generation coming up that has no expectation
whatsoever of reaping any benefits from OAS or from CPP. This
generation, our generation, has been irresponsible. We have not
balanced our budgets. We are creating a debt that is going to be
placed on our children that they will never be able to pay. They
will not even be able to sustain the social programs that we
enjoy. That is unconscionable.
I hope that the hon. member will become a little alarmed and
want to change some things to provide a better future for his
children and his grandchildren.
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I want to get this glass just
about half full so I can demonstrate something. I say the glass is
half full.
Mr. Hermanson: It's leaking.
Mr. Simmons: The member from Kindersley-Lloydminster
wants to insist it is half empty.
Mr. Hermanson: It's going down. There is less now than
there was before.
Mr. Simmons: That is the difference between us. One can put
a negative spin on anything one wants to. If he is saying to four
million Canadian seniors that relieving them of the burden of
those forms every year is diddling, in his term, I hope they heard
him.
Mr. Hermanson: What is the sense of having forums when
there is going to be no program?
Mr. Simmons: The member makes the mistake of thinking
one has the same speech on every piece of legislation. I hear his
views. I share many of the views he expressed a moment ago in
his intervention. Of course I share many of his views but it has
nothing to do with this bill.
If he is saying: ``Let's go out and solve the deficit and all you
older people, you four million, just wait there with your forms
now. Keep filling them out. We are going to rush out and fix the
deficit first. We will be back a few years from now and then we
will help you with your forms''. We can do both. It is not such a
big deal. Let us give them a few simplified forms. So work with
me on this, Matilda.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, B.Q.): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the hon. member opposite, who talked
about fire throughout his speech. And speaking of fire, I would
like to say that the government started the fire, and it is now up
to the opposition to put it out.
My question is very straightforward. Earlier, in referring to
social security reform, the hon. member mentioned one aspect
of unemployment insurance reform. My question is about
unemployment insurance and one specific point on which I
would appreciate some clarification.
6995
The government says it will put in place a mechanism to find
people who are cheating. I have no objection to that. I would,
however, appreciate a little more information on unemployment
insurance reform and what it entails. I would appreciate it if
the hon. member could expand on the role of the RCMP in
apprehending cheaters. Could we have some more details?
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon.
member for Lotbinière that my French is still as bad as ever.
[English]
Therefore, for the time being I will speak to him in English
because I lost the first part of his intervention in French and I
apologize to him for that. As he well knows, I like to, when I can,
respond to him in his first language. For clarity, let me do it in
the other language that I am working on, English.
(1550)
If he is talking about the reforms generally, I say to him that
this certainly is the place to discuss everything, but certainly not
the agenda item.
This agenda item is not talking about UI reform. We are
talking about a very simple administrative change that would
make it possible for the commissioner of the RCMP to enforce
the law. It is simply that. There is nothing very sinister here.
We have on our statute books all kinds of examples where
there is certain access to information for prosecuting alleged
criminal offences. Therefore there is nothing sinister in this
legislation so far as that item is concerned. It is a very simple
administrative provision that would allow the commissioner of
the RCMP to have access to certain client information, UI client
information for the purpose of prosecution.
If members subscribe to the basic tenet of law and order, then
I do not think they can argue with the need for the commissioner
of the RCMP to have access to that kind of information. I do not
know whether that answers the member's question. I might have
missed something else. If so, I would be glad to hear from him
again.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will recognize the hon.
member for Lotbinière very briefly, because someone else has a
question as well.
Mr. Landry: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the hon.
member opposite was spoke earlier, he made a few points about
unemployment insurance. Since he has already started to
respond to my comments and talk about unemployment
insurance, I would appreciate it if he would expand on what he
was saying. That was it.
[English]
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I understand my time is just
about up so I cannot be as expansive as I would like to on this.
Yes, I say to my friend from Lotbinière, I have many views on
unemployment insurance and its application. Some of those
views do not agree with some of the options laid out in the
discussion paper which the Minister of Human Resources
Development put before the public in the last week or so. I will
have an opportunity to say that as I have already been saying so.
The time will come when we will have, as a result of those
discussions, those public consultations-I have begun the
process in my own riding and I am sure the member has in his
because it is going to be a very thorough going review-and
during the day I will have my say. At the end of the day, based on
what kind of a package we come up with, I will do whatever the
other members of the House will do. I will make a decision as to
whether I will support that package or not.
If he wants my views on the issue in more detail I can give
them to him when I have some more time. However I do not
believe that one can punish people who through no fault of their
own are locked into seasonal employment as opposed to longer
term employment, for example.
I do not believe we can have in Canada two classes of citizens.
We can have all the categories we want but we have to always
apply the basic rule of fairness to all. If I had more time I would
be much more specific on that issue. I have some strong views.
I have in my riding several thousands of people who drew
their first cent of UI two years ago. I have people who fished for
35 years who never drew one cent of UI until two years ago.
They fished for 11 and a half months a year. They took
Christmas off and never even bothered to fill in the form even
though they qualified for a week or two. They went back out
again in January as they had done for many years.
My brief is not for people who have learned to beat the
system. There are some of those out there. My brief is for those
who are generally out of work from time to time and need the
assistance of the program to see them through.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to say, as I have done before, how much I always
enjoy the speeches of the member for Burin-St. George's.
However it seems to me he may have moved a little to the right
of me since I last heard him speak.
He talked a fair bit about fire, in calling fire. The member is
looking a little puzzled but I can see that he is a little more to the
right than he was the last time I heard him speak. A matter of
positioning I think, Madam Speaker.
6996
(1555)
The member repeatedly talked about the Reform Party crying
fire. I think he misinterpreted us. We are calling smouldering
embers that could burst into a flame at any time. I was rather
hoping he would use his glass of water to douse some of those
embers but he never did get round to it.
The bill we are debating, Bill C-54, is a bill full of what, I
agree with the member, appear to be pieces of legislative
housekeeping. Although there are one or two areas that give me
a little concern, I will deal with those a little bit later in the
speech.
First I would like to remind the House that Bill C-54 amends
the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act, and the Unemployment
Insurance Act. Clearly we are dealing with amendments to
various social programs, programs which cost taxpayers an
enormous amount of money and some of which are currently
under review as a consequence of the discussion paper that was
presented by the minister of human resources.
No doubt we will have to make some cuts to the social
programs in order to gain control of federal spending. In case
any member doubts the seriousness of the problem I would like
to remind the House that the current debt stands somewhere in
the region of $354 billion. This already enormous debt will
increase by about another $2 million in the time it takes me to
give this speech.
In case some of the members are rushing to check the Hansard
of October 7, yes, in my speech that day I said that the debt
would increase by $1 million, but I have twice the allocated time
today so there will be twice as much quality content for
government members to absorb. It should not be difficult for
anyone to see the risk to our social programs posed by this
enormous debt.
On Monday morning of this week I was a guest at Windsor
Secondary School in my riding. I was invited by a political
studies teacher, Mr. Tony Kapusta, to speak about life as an MP
and some of the critical issues that are facing the country today.
When I asked these grade 11 students to tell me what they
thought were the really big issues facing Canadians, they
identified Indian land claims, possible separation of Quebec, an
out of control immigration and refugee situation, an ineffective
Young Offenders Act, and justice problems in general. They also
mentioned the debt and deficit in relation to social programs.
I asked these young people, who will actually have to pay off
this debt-it will probably be $600-$700 billion by the time
they are out in the work force-how long they thought it took for
Canada to incur this debt. Their guesses included 100 years, 50
years. You should have seen the looks of astonishment when
they found out that it has basically taken only their lifetime,
something less than 20 years to incur this $534 billion worth of
debt.
It was also a Liberal government in power when this whole
deficit problem began so perhaps it is fitting punishment that
many of the same people who were present in that Liberal
government of the late 1970s will now be forced to face the
problem of the smouldering embers that I talked about a little
earlier.
The chief offender in fact may have been the present Prime
Minister who, as the Minister of Finance on budget day,
November 16, 1978, said: ``Significant reductions in the deficit
can be expected''. The problem is he did not say when.
Now he is quoted in this morning's Financial Post as saying
that if Canadians will not accept spending cuts in the next
budget, then the government has no option but to increase taxes.
The whole country is screaming for cuts to government
spending and the Prime Minister is still talking about raising
taxes.
It took 20 years to incur $534 billion worth of debt and he is
still talking about raising taxes. How are we going to pay it off?
Let us imagine for a moment that we could somehow manage to
eliminate the deficit this year by cutting $40 billion in spending.
Then let us say we could somehow manage to cut a further $10
billion from spending and begin applying it to paying off the
debt. Allowing for ongoing interest, it would take at least 60
years to pay off the debt. This debt that we have incurred in less
than 20 years would not be paid off by our
great-great-grandchildren. To achieve that would, as I have just
explained, require us to cut about $50 billion from spending this
year, $50 billion from a total of about $165 billion or almost
one-third of the entire federal budget.
(1600)
The problem is that every day we delay making serious cuts it
becomes harder and harder to take the first step. Every day takes
us closer to that time when those smouldering embers burst into
flames and the interest payments will end up consuming such a
large percentage of federal revenues that the entire federal
structure will collapse.
What will happen to our social programs then? What will it
matter about all the housekeeping amendments in Bill C-54 if
there is no money to pay the benefits?
Bill C-54, because it appears to improve the efficiencies of
the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act and the unemployment act,
may not in itself be an offensive bill. But the very fact that it
deals with aspects of social programs raises serious concerns
about how we can maintain these programs for those who
genuinely need them before our out of control federal spending
destroys the entire system.
6997
I heard an NDP member in the House yesterday complaining
that far too much attention is paid to the deficit. I am astounded
that there are still members in the House who have not learned
anything from witnessing the collapse of socialism in Sweden.
How can they ignore what happened in New Zealand, a country
that failed to gain control of its debt? When New Zealand
experienced its debt crisis in 1984 there was a labour
government in power, the equivalent of the NDP. But all the
NDP philosophy in the world did not help them when nobody
would buy their bonds. They had no choice but to cut social
programs to the bone, to sell off the country's assets, and to
deregulate unions; no choice regardless of the NDP philosophy.
Imagine how the labour, let us say NDP, prime minister of the
time, the Right Hon. David Lange, must have felt. He had to tell
the people of New Zealand that there was no free lunch, that they
had been buying their social programs with borrowed money,
and that the foreign lenders had decided they were sick of
picking up the tab.
Let me read a recent quote from the Right Hon. David Lange:
There was an enormous revolution in the New Zealand economy. The
outcome was that in the course of about three years we changed from being a
country that was run like a Polish shipyard to one which could be internationally
competitive.
Costs are big. People with privileges were dispossessed of them. They
crashed. It was tough. But on the other hand there is something fair about a
society which is transparent in its reward to people who work and which does
not preserve for those who do not, an inevitable flow of taxpayers' money.
There is a key sentence in there from an NDP prime minister.
Let me read that key sentence again:
But on the other hand there is something fair about a society which is
transparent in its reward to people who work and which does not preserve for
those who do not an inevitable flow of taxpayers' money.
The message is that people and companies which are cheating
the system will have to be cast adrift. The regulations that
permit people to collect benefits when they are earning above
the average family income must be changed. Our social services
have to be seen to be transparent and fair, available to those who
really need them and unavailable to those who have been
cheating or using the system to their own advantage.
It is extremely important that we voluntarily trim our social
programs so that they are preserved for those who truly need
them. The alternative could be having to deal with the aftermath
of a New Zealand style debt crisis.
There is a lot of talk in the House too about training programs
for people who are out of work. The human resources minister
has been running around saying that these programs are going to
be part of the new, revised social security system. I think the
evidence is that government run training programs are on
average pretty useless.
I see grant applications for UI training programs coming
across my desk on a regular basis, as most members of the House
must have. I have done a fair bit of in depth analysis of these
programs. Typically they claim great success in placement,
sometimes around 80 per cent, but on further investigation I
have found that often this means that 50 per cent have gone on to
a further training course that they could not have done without
the first one. That is considered to be placement when in fact it is
not a job at all; it is becoming a perpetual student.
(1605)
The present programs are openly discriminatory. The
application forms require the training company to fill in a quota
of women, visible minorities, disabled people and natives.
Instead of being able to choose the people with the best chance
of success on the course, the trainers are forced to make racist
and sexist decisions about who gets to be trained. It is a disgrace
that the government is openly encouraging racist and
discriminatory practices in its UI training programs. These
abhorrent requirements should be removed from the application
forms immediately so that prospects for training can be selected
without regard to their ethnic origin, sex or religion.
In Vancouver recently I was listening to a radio talk show and
a president of a local training company called to say that he was
prepared to train people for existing job opportunities and that
he would only ask for payment from the UI system when he
made a successful placement.
What an opportunity for the taxpayers. Here is a private
company that is prepared to risk its own money to select people,
to train them and then to put them into a job and only ask for
payment when the job is done. But our present laws do not allow
for this option.
I would have thought the minister would be falling over
himself to introduce an amendment to Bill C-54 that would
allow this opportunity. I am very disappointed he has not done
so. Instead of making meaningful changes to help reduce the
cost of social programs, he is quietly funding special interest
groups to lobby his ministry for retention of their own special
interest program funding. Six days before he presented his
social services discussion paper in the House, the minister's
department had already approved lobbying funds to a special
interest group in my riding.
I happen to think this particular group does some pretty good
work helping disabled people to gain work skills, but I strongly
object, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, to the handing out
of lobbying funds to organized special interest groups. These
6998
groups already have the advantage of being organized, with
research material readily available to them and the ability to
mount aggressive lobbying campaigns.
In a committee meeting on Monday the minister admitted that
many special interest groups have already completed their
submissions. How can this be? The people of Canada did not
even get the chance to see the discussion paper until the first
week of October. The minister has left us with the impression
that his favourite special interest groups already knew what
would be in it and had received special interest funding to ensure
that they lobby to protect their own special interest programs.
How can we believe the minister is serious about social
program reform when he has apparently already stacked the
deck in favour of specific groups, forgetting as usual the most
important single group of people: the workers who pay the taxes
and who will have to deal with the debt?
Ministers of the New Zealand government thought that they
could play that game too but the game had a finite end. They too
used to hand out grants and privileges to special interest groups,
to farmers and to businesses, but it all stopped because they
failed to address the problem of the debt.
An excellent ``W-5'' program on the New Zealand debt
problem was shown in Canada just over a year ago. In case some
members of the House did not get the opportunity to see it, I
have arranged to have it broadcast on the internal House of
Commons television channel in the near future. I will send
notice to all members to let them know when it will be shown.
However, as an update, I would like members to know that the
minister of finance for New Zealand rose in the New Zealand
House about one week ago to make a very important
announcement regarding the debt. He had made a mistake about
the budgetary surplus of $600 million predicted for this year. It
was not going to be $600 million after all; it was going to be a
surplus of over $700 million. The prediction for next year was
$2 billion, a surplus of $2 billion, with tax cuts promised for the
following year. How I long for the day when a minister of
finance can stand in this House and tell us that there will be tax
cuts the year after next.
Talking about the Minister of Finance reminds me that the
Canada pension plan is also being amended in Bill C-54. The
amendments are of a housekeeping nature, but it brings to mind
that the finance minister has refused to deny that he may
introduce a tax on RRSPs in the upcoming budget. I am sure
government members are receiving plenty of letters about it
because I certainly am.
(1610)
Many Canadians have done exactly what the government has
been urging them to do. They have been putting aside money for
their retirement in RRSP funds. They have put aside these funds
because they are afraid the present debtload will cause the CPP
system to totally disappear. Even floating a trial balloon about
the taxing of RRSP balances is a cruel thing to do, but to refuse
to deny it is being considered is completely unacceptable.
The next RRSP season is due to peak around the time the next
budget may come down. Unless the minister puts it on record
that he will not under any circumstances tax RRSPs, he will
cause a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the investment
markets and a lot of stress for taxpaying Canadians.
While the government refuses to assure Canadians that their
RRSPs will not be taxed, nothing is being done to bring the gold
plated MP pension plan into line with the private sector. In the
next month or so a large group of Liberal MPs will become
eligible for lifelong pensions after just six years in the role of an
MP. They will be sidling up to the tax trough for a combined
total payout of around $53 million. It is a lifelong pension
collected as soon as they are thrown out of office in the next
election and fully indexed to inflation in later years.
I would like it on the record that I refused to sign the form
authorizing 11 per cent of my salary to be paid into the MP
pension fund. Despite this, the 11 per cent is being taken against
my will, forcing me to bring this topic up regularly until I am
permitted to opt out of the plan, or it is brought into line with
plans in the private sector.
I am almost out of time. I did want to question some of the
provisions of Bill C-54. Clauses 9 and 23 of Bill C-54 affect
clauses 18 and 37 of the OAS act and permit the crown to
attempt to recover accidental overpayments from more than a
year ago, provided it would not cause undue hardship.
Overpayment is overpayment. I am not sure just because the
recipient spent the money that there is a reason not to collect it.
The key perhaps is whether the crown was negligent in
overpaying and by its actions caused the recipient to believe that
he or she was receiving the funds legitimately. I hope this area
will be studied and addressed in committee in order to determine
the true meaning and purpose of the clauses.
Clause 37 amends clause 86(1) of the CPP act and appears to
make it more difficult for out of country residents to claim travel
costs in the event of an appeal. I am curious to know how much
money is expended on such travel claims and hope that one of
the government members can clarify this point for me. I am all
in favour of eliminating unnecessary government spending, but
I wonder if justice is being done by making it financially
difficult to appeal a ruling, especially if the appeal is successful.
Finally, none of us want our children to be deprived of all the
social services that Bill C-54 addresses. I do hope the
government will start to address the problems soon.
6999
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have to start by asking the Chair whether or not any
thought was ever given to installing a large gong in the House
that members could approach and hit.
I am absolutely astounded at some of the comments. It is
irresponsible of the member to create fearmongering about all
the different things he talked about. I cannot deal with all of
them in the brief time I have, but I would like to address the
RRSP question, for instance.
The member will know that the federal government had
commissioned a major report. It was reported in today's Ottawa
Citizen that the study the finance minister had commissioned
would not be ready before the next budget. The article fairly
reflected the fact that there will not be the information available
for the minister to consider any major changes to RRSPs and
pensions. There may however be some minor changes that may
for instance lower the maximum limit one can contribute to an
RRSP.
(1615)
The member is somehow suggesting that every time a
question is asked, will the minister do this, he has to say yes or
no. That is totally denying the process of discussion with the
Canadian public which has just commenced.
Last evening a roundtable of 20 groups representing
economic organizations and groups from right across the
country came before the finance committee to advise on the
process and ways in which the government could address the
deficit and the debt. That is consultation which the hon. member
is denying. He wants answers and decisions right away before
the consultation has even taken place. He discounts the value of
communicating and consulting with the Canadian public.
Finally I would simply like to say with regard to MP pensions
that I do not think the member is ever going to find any
disagreement in this House with the need to reform MP
pensions. That is coming. Indeed the Prime Minister said in this
House that MP pension reform will be coming.
The government ran on the platform in the red book that
included the elimination of double dipping and the delay in
pension receipts until retirement age. With regard to those facts,
just those two of the many things I could have mentioned, I
certainly for one would have opted to take the hammer and hit
the gong.
Mr. White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
member has accused me of fearmongering and making
unacceptable statements. I personally do not consider it
fearmongering or unacceptable to express the concerns of my
constituents in this House.
I am being showered with letters and phone calls from my
constituents demanding that this government deny it is going to
tax their RRSPs. That is not an irresponsible request; it is a
reasonable request from Canadians.
We often joke on this side of the House that question period is
properly named because we never get answers. The minister has
a responsibility, studies or no studies, to ensure that RRSPs
which are the foundation of Canadians' retirement programs are
not going to be taxed. It is very important that he does so.
I stand by the statements I made in my speech. I think the
member is irresponsible if he does not communicate his
constituents' concerns about RRSPs also into this House.
I would like to mention that he also indirectly accused me of
fearmongering with respect to the rest of my speech. I would
like to make the note that although Bill C-54 is fairly thick and
heavy and full of only minor amendments, it does not help
whatsoever in reducing this huge deficit problem that we have,
$40 billion this year.
Imagine how many hospitals and roads we could build and
what we could do to upgrade our armed forces, how much it
would contribute to reducing child poverty if we had that $40
billion to spend instead of using it to pay interest on the debt. We
could build 12 times as much infrastructure as the red ink book
infrastructure program does in one year, 12 times as much in a
single year. Vancouver could finally get a freeway capable of
carrying its traffic.
We have to do something about the deficit and the debt
problem. I stand by every word I made in my speech.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleagues have eloquently shared
with members of the House many of the details of the
amendments contained in Bill C-54 and many other items as
well. However because some hon. members may portray these
amendments as detrimental to old age security and the Canada
pension plan and unemployment insurance beneficiaries, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight.
These amendments arise out of a genuine desire to improve
the service which the Department of Human Resources
Development provides its many and varied clients. At the same
time these amendments enable the Government of Canada to
pursue other important goals while respecting the rights of its
clients and those of the taxpayers of Canada.
One of the amendments contained in Bill C-54 would reduce
the period that old age security benefits can be paid retroactively
from five years to one.
(1620 )
Some will suggest that the government is robbing pensioners
of their pensions. Really what older Canadian, in fact what not
7000
so old Canadian has not heard of the old age security pension. It
is probably one of the best known of all government programs.
Everyone knows that we have to be age 65 to get the pension.
One of the reasons it is so widely known is that it opens doors to
other entitlements. If you receive the old age security pension
and have a low income you can qualify for the guaranteed
income supplement. If your spouse is between 60 and 65 he or
she can qualify for the spouse's allowance.
As well once a person receives the OAS pension they receive
an OAS identification card. Many seniors use that as proof they
have reached the so-called golden age and are entitled to
discounts and special rates that businesses, transportation
providers and others offer to senior citizens. Let us not forget the
benefits that many provincial and territorial governments
provide to low income recipients of the old age security pension.
On the other side however some individuals aware of the five
year retroactivity period may in fact decide to delay application
for their OAS. Their profit so to speak may be eligibility or
increased benefits for other provincial or federal benefits
because they are not receiving the OAS.
Further, higher income individuals may look at the five year
retroactivity period as a means to defer taxes with the so-called
clawback of the OAS.
Given then that the old age security pension is so widely
known, is one year not a reasonable period during which to
expect that a senior citizen can make application for benefits or
have a family member or friend do it on his or her behalf? Indeed
data from the Department of Human Resources Development
show that the vast majority of pensioners apply not just on time
but well in advance of their 65th birthday.
Providing a one year retroactivity period is not only
reasonable, it is consistent with the retroactivity periods of other
related programs. Even within the OAS legislation guaranteed
income supplements and spouse's allowance payments can be
paid retroactively for only one year.
As well Canada pension plan benefits which many OAS
pensioners receive may also be paid retroactively for just one
year. Indeed the two different retroactivity periods have been a
source of confusion for CPP and OAS clients and have been very
difficult to explain.
Furthermore the amendment would also include a special
provision for those individuals who fail to apply because of
incapacity which could occur because of serious illness. For
these people the bill would allow unlimited retroactivity back to
the point that the incapacity began.
This approach to retroactivity for OAS benefits is fair and
reasonable and I am sure hon. members will see it as such. To
relieve any concerns hon. members may have about this change,
there will be a grace period until April 1995. This will enable
anyone over the age of 65 who may not have applied for their
OAS pension up to now and who could qualify for more than 12
months of retroactive payments to apply under the current rules.
This approach is fair, reasonable and I am sure hon. members
will see it as such.
I would like to turn to another provision which could cause
concern to those not properly informed. This is the amendment
to the Old Age Security Act which would remove the existing
timeframe restrictions for the recovery of overpaid moneys to
OAS, GIS and spouse's allowance clients.
The current legislation allows overpayment benefits to be
recovered only if they are discovered and recovery is started in a
very short time after the overpayment is made. The provision
does not apply in cases of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.
However those situations aside, the restrictions of the
existing provisions mean that each year millions of dollars in
overpayments must be written off even where the pensioner
could easily afford to repay the overpaid amount. It is important
to mention that the act already has provisions allowing
overpayments to be forgiven if the recovery would cause
hardship, the amount is small, or there is no reasonable hope of
repayment.
Another proposed provision in this bill would also allow
overpayments to be forgiven if they occurred as a result of an
error on the part of the OAS administration. The policy for
recovery of overpayments also allows for the negotiation of a
schedule of repayments to ensure that no hardship would occur
to the pensioner.
I should also add that another amendment in the bill would
allow Revenue Canada information to be used to verify GIS and
spouse's allowance income statements at an earlier stage in the
annual process for applying for income supplements. This has
been the main source of GIS and SPA overpayments.
(1625)
The taxpayers of Canada expect us to spend their tax dollars
wisely, but Canadians are also compassionate. This amendment
would be fair to the taxpayers of Canada while at the same time
treating pensioners who have been overpaid fairly and
compassionately.
The Department of Human Resources Development is
required to collect very personal information from its clients in
order to determine if they are eligible for benefits. The
responsibility for safeguarding this information has never been
taken lightly. Indeed, keeping such information privileged has
been so important to the department that many of its legislative
provisions have been even more stringent than the Privacy Act.
7001
These tight restrictions on the use of CPP, OAS and UI client
information, while guaranteeing Canadians privacy, have
prevented justice from being done in one very important
situation. I am speaking about investigations into war crimes
and crimes against humanity.
The existing provisions of the OAS and CPP legislation allow
confidential client information to be released only after a
criminal charge has been laid. With respect to UI that legislation
prohibits the release of some kinds of client information while
in other instances the legislation is vague about such release.
Often the identity of the individuals who have been identified
as suspected war criminals cannot be confirmed. This has meant
that the RCMP has not been able to conclusively establish the
existence and location in Canada of many of the individuals in
question and therefore cannot lay charges.
The amendments contained in this bill would allow OAS, CPP
and UI data to be used by specific and very restricted individuals
within the RCMP for the investigation, prosecution and
extradition activities undertaken in Canada in relation to war
crimes and crimes against humanity. This information would be
used in Canada only. In no instance would confidential client
information be made available to foreign governments or
agencies and in no instance would the RCMP have access to
client information for other than this purpose.
The last thing the government wants to do is erode
individuals' rights to privacy, but this right has been used as a
cover by those wanting to evade prosecution for unspeakable
crimes. The Government of Canada and indeed Canadians no
longer want our right to privacy to be used as a shield by those
who do not want to be held accountable for crimes they
committed against humanity. This amendment would help
ensure that it is not.
Finally, there is one more amendment that I want to clarify for
hon. members. This is an amendment to the Old Age Security
Act and Canada pension plan that is consequential to an
amendment being proposed by the Solicitor General. This would
allow the Department of Human Resources Development to
provide information on the OAS and CPP benefits being paid to
pensioners who are incarcerated in federal penal institutions.
The intention is that these individuals would be charged room
and board based on their income. This information would allow
the Solicitor General to receive accurate information from the
Department of Human Resources Development on the amount of
these moneys so that a fair charge could be made.
Is it right that prisoners receive free room and board at the
same time that they may be accumulating income from federal
benefits that may also be paid from the public purse? I do not
think so and neither do Canadians. Pensioners who are not
criminals have to pay for their own accommodation and other
needs. It is only fair and indeed responsible that those of penal
institutions do the same, especially when they are receiving
federal benefits at the same time.
In conclusion, I hope these explanations have helped to
clarify the rationale for a few of the amendments contained in
Bill C-54 and I give hon. members the information they need to
be able to explain them to their constituents. It is my distinct
honour to support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, B.Q.):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to
Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the
Canada Pension Plan, the Chidren's Special Allowances Act and
the Unemployment Insurance Act, introduced by the Minister of
Human Resources Development. This legislation contains
amendments to several acts that are extremely important to the
economy of Quebec, and to Canada's as well.
Furthermore, it gives us an opportunity, as members of the
Bloc Quebecois, to explain our position on social security
reform. On several occasions we have made it clear where we
stand on these programs, and Bill C-54 is another opportunity
for us to show that we support social programs and that we are
prepared to defend the interests of those who are affected by this
bill.
(1630)
I think it is important to realize, as I said earlier at the
beginning of my speech, that this bill concerns people who
receive old age security benefits. This means they are 65 years
of age and over. People in this age group may be less aware of
their rights and obligations under this legislation, and they may
also be more vulnerable than young couples or people in their
thirties or forties who can find their way through the legislative
maze. That is something we should not forget.
However, in this bill, I am particularly worried about the fact
that certain government agencies will have access to
information on beneficiaries. The government already had
legislation that authorized communication of this information to
certain agencies, but Bill C-54 has expanded this authority to
include agencies such as Canada Post, the Correctional Service
of Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Minister of
Justice and the Attorney General, Members of Parliament and
persons designated by the minister as health care professionals.
This authority is very broad. It means giving a large group of
people access to a very extensive data bank. That is why, at this
stage, we moved an amendment to ensure that no one will abuse
this information, bearing in mind that these people are among
the most vulnerable in our society and that there is always the
possibility that someone could, not necessarily use the
information to blackmail them, but use it improperly.
7002
The amendment we are suggesting is very simple. It says that
we refuse to support the bill on second reading because it does
not provide for any sanctions under the Criminal Code for
anyone who discloses personal information on beneficiaries to
sources not authorized to have access to privileged information.
Where I come from, we always say: ``Too strong, will not
bend''. I think a chapter could be included to really ensure that
whoever has access to such information will pay careful
attention to how it will be used.
This is what our reasoned amendment is about. I will tell you,
in my speech, about another reasoned amendment we could have
tabled but did not. This amendment also deals with an important
matter.
I must say right away that I am not against the bill as a whole.
On the contrary, I think it contains some valuables clauses and
principles that will make certain things easier. But we must
always be very careful with this kind of legislation.
Let us look at certain changes together. Some of these set
limits regarding access to information, as I said earlier. They
introduce time frames concerning the return of benefits to save
money. I have no problem with that.
Others deal with technicalities concerning benefit repayment.
They change the appeals system and enable the minister to
acquire assets. I have a little problem with that, but I will
address it later on.
All in all, the Minister of Human Resources Development saw
fit-and we are behind him on this- to make the benefit scheme
and plans for the elderly easier and more flexible. Contrary to
what the minister claims, as have several other ministers during
question period, we do not systematically object to any
government proposal. If he listened more carefully, he would
realize that we do support some of this government's initiatives,
as I said earlier.
At any rate, before dealing with the bill per se, I think it is
important, in fact essential, to take a look at the situation of the
elderly, because it is not quite as rosy as the government seems
to believe it is.
(1635)
I think I should remind the minister of certain figures. For
example, in 1992, the average income of elderly families was
$39,439, as compared to approximately $56,000 for other
families. Also, and more importantly, the average income of the
single elderly was $18,434, as compared to $25,000 for other
single individuals. Moreover, some 21 per cent of seniors, or
625,000 seniors, are considered as low-income earners. While
this number remains mind-boggling, it must be pointed out that
it has gone down over the past decade. The number of
low-income seniors has decreased while it has increased in the
general population.
However, the proportion of low-income people among
seniors is consistently higher than in the general population. So
we can see that the situation of seniors deserves special attention
and compassion going beyond the Canadian finance minister's
obsession with the deficit, but this can improve with time.
People in exceptional situations need exceptional, but not
drastic, solutions.
Over the years, the federal government has come up with
several ways to help seniors. There are the two main programs,
Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan, as well as some
tax measures such as the guaranteed income supplement,
spouse's allowance, survivor benefits and disability benefits.
All these measures are designed to ensure the well-being of
seniors.
It must also be noted that since the Liberals took office,
Quebec's welfare rolls have swelled up by 30,000, and that the
Minister of Human Resources Development's social program
reform will make the situation worse. Employment
development requires much more than an infrastructure
program. The thousands of jobs the Liberals boast of creating
are almost all temporary.
Before we scrutinize Bill C-54, it is important to look at the
tendency shown by the government in its first budget, however
slim it is. We must remember that the past tells us about the
future. The measures in the last budget call into question all the
social programs Canada and Quebec have put in place in the last
30 years.
The last budget sets the tone for the government's direction.
This little test by the Minister of Finance involves cuts to
unemployment insurance and, of special concern for seniors, to
the age credit.
The Minister of Finance made the decision to reduce the age
credit, so that all taxpayers aged 54 and older can claim a tax
credit amounting to 17 per cent of $3,482 at the federal level and
20 per cent of $2,200 in Quebec. This credit is non-refundable,
that is, it can be deducted from taxes payable but the excess
portion cannot be refunded. Any unused portion can, however,
be transferred to one's spouse.
The combined federal and provincial tax reduction averages
about $950, while in Quebec the reduction is around $1,050. The
change brought about by the last budget aims to reduce this
credit for seniors whose net income is over $25,921. The
applicable threshold for other credits is based on one's income.
The amount of that threshold will be indexed according to the
fraction of the annual consumer price index increase which
exceeds 3 per cent. As I said earlier, the credit will be reduced by
an amount equal to 15 per cent of the part of an individual's net
income which exceeds $25,921. That credit will completely
disappear when a person's income reaches $49,100.
7003
These measures raise questions. Does the government
consider that a senior with an income of $25,000 is a rich
taxpayer? That measure does not target the rich; once again it
affects the middle class and, this time, more specifically the
older people who belong to that group.
The feeble attempts to reduce spending are made at the
expense of the poor, the unemployed, the welfare recipients and
the middle class. We cannot say it often enough. The more we
repeat it, the greater the chances the minister will finally
understand.
(1640)
The government has difficulty understanding what fairness
implies. In fact, this government seems to adhere more to the
notion of unfairness. After all, where is the fairness in this
double standard whereby, for the 1993 taxation year, old age
security pensioners whose net incomes exceed $53,215, see
their pension clawed back at a rate of 15 per cent, which
gradually increases to the point where the whole pension is
clawed back for pensioners whose income reaches $83,215?
Moreover, in his social policy reform, the Minister of Human
Resources Development excluded programs for seniors.
However, the fate of our seniors is sealed in the budget of his
colleague, the Minister of Finance.
On page 41 of the Budget Plan, the minister says that: ``the
government will[-] release in the coming months a paper
which will examine the challenges and the opportunities posed
by Canada's aging society. The paper will examine what the
aging society will need in terms of services and what, if any,
changes are required to the public pension system to make it
financially sustainable''. This leaves the door open to a lot of
things.
He goes on saying: ``The paper will also examine what, if any,
changes should be made to the tax treatment of contributions to,
and income buildup in, registered pension, profitsharing, and
retirement savings plans''.
If the Minister of Finance is going to take care of senior
citizens instead of the Minister of Human Resources
Development, we can conclude that the Liberals are seeing
senior citizens as economic factors, just like interest rates,
rather than a productive human resource. And that should worry
us.
Now, as to the bill and its main cost cutting measures, I must
say that it is comforting to see that the government is trying to
put some oil in the gears of a very heavy bureaucratic machine.
These are the positive aspects of the bill, the ones we can agree
with.
It is nice to know that those applying late for their pension
will be able to get up to a year's worth of payments. That is a
good thing although, in the case of OAS, this is a reduction from
five years to one. As well, clients can be forgiven OAS benefit
overpayments that are the result of an administrative error or
erroneous advice from department officials. This too, I think, is
fairer.
In addition, the timeframe restriction for the recovery of
guaranteed income supplement overpayments will be removed.
I find this a bit dangerous. If the errors were made by civil
servants and the situation is allowed to drag on for several
months, several years, this is dangerous for the person at the
point where the government notices the error and claims its due,
the overpayment. No limitation is mentioned, however, and this
needs to be looked into. If I were an older Canadian, this would
worry me. I would want to ask the department how this would be
dealt with.
In addition, we are told that the government hopes to recover
1 to 2 million dollars with this measure. The Minister of Human
Resources Development will also be able to postpone payment
of benefits pending a review or an appeal. This sets off warning
bells. It is an opportunity ripe for patronage. What will go on?
The minister reserves the right to postpone certain payments,
certain decisions. I do not like things that are not clear and this
point is not clear.
Claimants could thus be deprived of benefits that they need to
live, and that are often their only source of income during this
entire period.
There are a series of clauses of a somewhat technical and
administrative nature that I will not dwell on, given that we are
in agreement. I think that if there are any points on which we do
not agree and that should be raised immediately, I will do so.
First of all, the government is saying that it has reduced the
period of retroactivity from five years to one in order to increase
consistency between the Old Age Security and Canada Pension
Plan programs.
(1645)
It must be noted that every time such concern arises, the result
is a downward adjustment. It boils down to the government
making even tighter the qualifying conditions for programs for
the elderly. Therefore, the government will have to explain how
the existing provisions on old age security benefit overpayment
do not provide it with adequate protection.
As it stands, the act provides that the government may go back
up to two years. Eliminating this time limit would enable the
government to recover anything between one and two million
dollars, as I said earlier. Considering that beneficiaries are
afforded protection against potential mistakes by civil servants,
these two provisions seem to be in contradiction. This clause
would really need to be clarified so as to not generate a conflict
between citizens 65 and older and the government.
I must reiterate in this House that people over 65 years of age
tend to be less inclined to put up a fight. They may be less
affluent and more vulnerable in this respect. Perhaps the
govern-
7004
ment will take advantage of this situation to claim repayment of
benefits whenever it feels like it.
Moreover, in case of appeal, the minister could defer
payment. But the minister himself admits that a major portion of
beneficiaries have no income besides old age security benefits.
That being so, many beneficiaries could finds themselves in an
extremely difficult situation when this provision is put into
application.
At the end of the day, while they will not have a substantial
impact of recipients in general, these provisions nonetheless
reflect the direction this government has taken since coming to
power, that is to say, to cut in social programs.
I also have reservations about a few other provisions and one,
in particular, whereby clients required to repay to Revenue
Canada amounts claimed from old age security using the
revenue-tested reduction rate will be able avoid repaying by
asking that benefit payments stop. This should be clarified in the
bill, to facilitate the interpretation of the act.
I mentioned earlier that we had moved only one reasoned
amendment, while we might have moved two. At least, we
considered the possibility. I think it would have provided the
government with a great opportunity to include some kind of
safeguard in this bill. With everything that is now going on in the
House, with everything that we want to cut-and when I say
``we'', I mean the government-with everything that the
government wants to cut, in wide swarths, billions and always in
the same direction, of course. But there were times when they
frightened elderly people in Quebec, on several occasions; the
federal government frightened seniors-In the 1980
referendum, they said, ``If you vote for sovereignty,'' even
though that was not the question, ``the PQ and the sovereignists
will cut your old age pensions''.
That was the time for the federal government to put a
provision in the law, in this law, in Bill C-54, to guarantee this
income for people in need, to put a clause in the law saying: ``We
guarantee that you people 65 and over who need your pension
will have it, whatever cuts are made in social programs; we will
not cut your family income and we guarantee these old age
benefits for you''. But no, there is nothing like that in the bill.
If I were a senior, I would be worried about that. I would call
the department to find out what is going on. ``Why do you not
guarantee this sum of money? We need it. In many cases, it is our
only source of income''.
No, there is nothing.
That being said, I think that I have presented enough material
to show that on the whole, Bill C-54 has some good features, but
it should be amended to make it more humane, fairer and more
equitable for everyone.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I listened attentively to the member's speech. It is obvious that
he has looked carefully at the legislation and is speaking well on
behalf of his constituents.
(1650 )
I did want to raise a couple of points, however. I would like to
hear the member's comments because I get the sense that there
was an indictment that the government was somehow going after
seniors. This is an unwholesome way to put the issue.
As we all know, the finance minister's last budget included a
clawback in the old age exemption for seniors. That meant that
once seniors had an income over the $25,000 level it started to
be reduced until they reached just over $49,000.
To help explain the situation or understand the equity of the
situation the member could have indicated that the clawback
mechanism that is applied to the old age exemption is exactly
the same clawback mechanism that is applied to the child tax
benefit. That is the tax benefit that replaced the family
allowance system we had for many years. That means people
with children who made over $25,000 all of a sudden started
losing that child tax benefit as well. That happened in the prior
year.
What is worse for families with children is that last year they
also lost the exemption for their children on the income tax
return. As a father of three, I know how much that cost me as
well.
One thing we have to ask ourselves is that if there is a cut in
the old age exemption, is that simply an issue to do with seniors?
I think not. When there are changes to the benefits levels that
Canada can extend to its citizens, it is not just the people who
enjoy them today, it is also the people who were hoping to enjoy
them tomorrow. That means that I will never get an old age
exemption. I have already lost a child tax benefit that most
people ahead of me had taken advantage of.
All of a sudden we have to consider that any changes in the tax
structure or in the deductions of the tax credits do not simply
affect those who are presently benefiting from those benefits but
also those who are to come later.
Last night the finance committee had a round table for some
six hours with economists from right across the country. If
members want to hear some draconian measures they should
listen to some of these economists who, the member might be
interested to know, were saying across the board cuts of 5 per
cent or 7 per cent on everything, all programs.
Those kinds of things I do not think we will see this
government embrace. There are certainly major changes that
have to be made but they have to be done in a way to make
absolutely sure-I know the member agrees and I know the
government is
7005
of this view-that those in most need are always taken care of in
Canada, the best country in the world.
I would be interested in the member's comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer
that question. I, too, will ask the hon. member a question by
repeating what he has just told me. With what he heard in
committee, I wonder who leads in this government. Is it the
economists, the IMF, the actuaries? Who leads in this
government and where are they going?
Bill C-54 gives me some idea of where they are heading. As I
said earlier, they are cutting some very wide swarths and starting
to squeeze old age pensions. This is what they are doing today,
but what will they do tomorrow? That is why I feel we must be
wary of this bill. It must really be examined from all angles to
see what is happening in this department.
I am being told: ``The hon. member seems to think that this
bill attacks seniors or others''. I not only think so, I am sure of it.
Reducing from five to one year the deadline for claiming
benefits seniors were previously entitled to is an attack on
seniors. Second, waiving overpayment requirements is another
attack on seniors. The government could turn around five years
later and ask you to repay the $300 and change, plus interest, you
received every month for five years. I think that seniors have a
right to be concerned about this bill.
(1655)
Seniors are also justifiably worried, in my opinion, about the
fact that several departments would have easy access to
information. The most serious oversight is that, as I said earlier,
the bill does not guarantee that people aged 65 and older will get
their old age pensions.
The burden of proof is being reversed. Talking about
sovereignists and about Quebec, they tell us: ``If you become a
sovereign country, you will lose your old age pension''. But I am
telling you that if we stay in Canada-if we decide to stay in
Canada, but I hope not-seniors may not collect old age
pensions either and I think it is something they will keep in mind
when it is time to vote and to really think about this issue.
I think I have given the hon. member enough explanations to
show that Bill C-54 is indeed the beginning of an attack on the
needy, on those aged 65 and older. That is why we, in the Bloc
Quebecois, are concerned, why we proposed a minor reasoned
amendment to at least ensure that the information will be put to
good use. This is one shortcoming of Bill C-54.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke: Pearson
International Airport.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the issue being debated today is of great interest to this
government, since it concerns our seniors.
Bill C-54 essentially aims to improve services to those who
benefit from various old age security programs. These include
basic benefits, spouse's allowances and, of course, the
guaranteed income supplement. It must be noted that this bill
does not change the content of those programs.
It does not change in any way the amount of the benefits
received by seniors. The purpose of this legislation is essentially
to make life easier for the recipients by reducing duplication and
the paper burden, something we talked about during the last
election campaign. I was very pleased to hear the Official
Opposition critic recognize the improvements contained in this
bill.
Like us, the hon. member realizes the importance of
streamlining as much as possible the procedures and the paper
work for seniors to be eligible for benefits. The amendments
tabled today will allow some 1.4 million seniors to receive their
pensions with a minimum of red tape.
This is a very concrete example which confirms the
government's will to streamline the federal administration and
make it more accessible for its clientele. The reorganization of
income security programs is in response to a growing demand
for government services during this period of budget
constraints. It is expected that, by the turn of the century, the
number of Canadians benefitting from the Canada Pension Plan,
the Old Age Security Pension as well as other income security
programs will have increased by 40 per cent. During the next
three years, social security reform will offer new technologies
and services. The main purpose is to provide an efficient
response to the needs of Canada's aging population and the
government's growing number of clients.
(1700)
This new approach will make it easier for clients to deal with
the bureaucracy. In our client-service centres, employees will
be able to make decisions immediately, thanks to all the
information that will be available to them. This will obviously
cut down on the time needed to process applications, and we will
be able to tell clients the date of their first payment.
Furthermore, seniors will be able to communicate
information changes, including a change of address, by
telephone, using the touch- tone key pad. In the case of clients
who prefer more personalized service or do not have a touch
tone telephone, employees will be available to answer their
questions without delay.
Annually, nearly 1.4 million seniors, the majority of whom
are women, have to reapply in order to continue to receive their
guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance. The
7006
department cannot authorize payments for the new fiscal year
until an application for renewal has been filed and approved.
Every year in April, as many as 100,000 pensioners do not
receive their benefits on time for various reasons, either because
they applied late or because information on their applications
had to be checked. Since only seniors on low or modest incomes
are eligible for these benefits, any delay in benefit payments
may cause problems for the recipients.
In the case of many seniors, income amounts hardly change
from year to year. A substantial proportion of recipients of GIS
and SPA have no source of income other than their pension. It
would be possible to simplify the renewal process for a large
number of pensioners. However, no exceptions can be made
under the current provisions of the Old Age Security Act. All
recipients must file a new application every year. From now on,
however, in the case of certain recipients, the minister will be
able to waive the obligation to file annual renewals of
applications for GIS and SPA.
The minister could, for instance, waive the requirement for a
full year. He could also extend payment of a benefit based on
estimated income until updated information is available from
Revenue Canada. In this way, there will be no need to interrupt
payments of GIS and SPA to seniors. Individuals applying for
the first time would, of course, have to file an application in any
case.
The changes will be implemented gradually in order to
prevent any disruption for pensioners and to ensure smooth
management.
The present legislation allows the release of confidential
information to some departments, provided that certain rules are
adhered to. There is no doubt that the management of senior
citizens' programs is getting more and more complex.
Therefore, good management requires that relevant information
be shared and circulated among departments, but according to a
given set of rules. For example, if there were better access to
information, Canada Post could make available to us its
knowledge of new techniques which would accelerate the
processing of cheques to clients. However, the present
provisions on the sharing of information prevent us from buying
services from Canada Post.
(1705)
According to the new provisions, personal information will
only be made available according to very strict procedures.
Clearly, as a government, we will continue to protect all
confidential information on our clients. To that end, the
legislation contains very strict guidelines on the release of
information to third parties.
We even have special provisions where criminal charges are
involved. Information will only be made available under certain
conditions, in this particular case if criminal charges have been
laid against the person or if the government is under order from a
court to produce documents.
Anyone making available personal information under
circumstances not covered by the legislation will be guilty of an
offence. This shows that the government is taking the protection
of personal information very seriously. Moreover, the
legislation provides for penalties for every violation of the
rules.
As you can see, the government has been particularly
attentive to the protection of personal information on our
clients, which is only natural.
I sincerely believe that our opposition colleagues should trust
the government in this matter. We live in a free and democratic
society based on a fundamental principle which I respect,
namely the rule of law.
It goes without saying that when lawmakers produce a bill,
they should leave no room for discretionary powers which too
often lead to arbitrary decisions. It is therefore very important to
understand that even though this bill allows for some disclosure
of information, it seeks first and foremost to protect senior
citizens. When I say to protect senior citizens, I mean two
things. First, to protect them against arbitrary decisions and,
second, to protect them so that they have easier access to
government services.
Indeed, this bill is aimed at making life easier for all senior
pensioners. I repeat that neither the level of benefits nor the
eligibility criteria have changed. The benefits these people are
receiving now have not been touched. All we are doing is
proceeding with an administrative reorganization in line with
what I call the new evolutive federalism, a cost-effective
federalism which tries to forge ahead and eliminate overlapping,
in co-operation with the various stakeholders, namely the
provinces, because we keep in mind that the overriding
preoccupation of every government should be, first and
foremost, the taxpayers' best interest.
I must tell you that in the particular context of this bill, the
best interest of senior citizens, whom the party I belong to has
always protected and will continue to do so, is taken into
account. This bill illustrates the commitment of our party to this
important segment of our society whom I call our builders. We
are showing them that we care.
We believe that this bill is a fundamental piece of legislation
and that it will provide senior citizens with the best protection
possible.
(1710)
As a matter of fact, we believe it is the only way to prove our
gratitude for their great contribution to the well-being of the
Canadian population as a whole.
I will conclude by saying again that, in the past, some
governments have tried to reduce the deficits at the expense of
that group in our society. Now, according to the basic principles
established by the Liberal Party that I represent, I can tell you
7007
that we will never touch the pensions of our seniors, we will
never modify those pensions nor will we ever act in any way to
reduce their incomes.
If there is a reform, I suppose it will affect more directly
coming generations, people of my generation. Senior citizens
who now receive benefits from the government, be it pensions or
others, have earned them with their work. They have worked to
build this country and it would be immoral to start cutting into
what we owe them.
When I see members of Opposition acting as scarecrows and
trying to scare those people by telling them that the government
is trying to reduce the deficit at their expense, I think this is pure
and effective demagogy. I repeat: We will not touch pensions.
What we do, we do in the interest of taxpayers. We protect them
and offer them better access by allowing information to
circulate more freely.
On the other hand, of course, as in any bill allowing the
release of information, we have established parameters that
have been examined very closely. Certain parameters will allow
the release of information if this serves the interest of taxpayers
and other parameters will forbid such release. Those parameters
will be rigorously enforced in cases where there is no need to
release information.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent
presentation this afternoon. Can he comment on the type of work
the constituency offices actually do, how the amendments that
will be brought forward in Bill C-54 will actually help us as
members of Parliament to provide a more effective and efficient
service, especially to our retirement constituents? In April we
received many calls because of changes the retirement
population has to comply with when filling out these
applications.
If the hon. member could expand on his experience with his
constituency office, the kind of work he does during that time
and how these amendments would lend themselves to providing
a more effective delivery system to our retirement population.
[Translation]
Mr. Cauchon: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his question. Of course, providing information is a fundamental
activity. As the hon. member said, it has an impact at the level of
our constituency offices. It goes without saying that, when we
meet seniors in our electoral ridings, their questions are often
varied and deal with various government departments. Seniors
may come to us with health problems or problems in their
dealings with Canada Post, Veterans Affairs or the Department
of Justice.
It is obvious that, with a piece of legislation making
communications between departments more flexible, where
authorized to do so by the taxpayers, it will be much easier for us
to obtain information from departments for one thing. The work
of these departments will also be made more efficient by the fact
that they will not have to access the data bank and request
permission to have access to the information. Since it will be so
provided in the legislation, departments that meet the prescribed
requirements will have access to the information.
In concrete terms, this means that the taxpayers are bound to
come out on top. As I like to point out now and then, our duty is
indeed to serve the public, and personally, I will be able to serve
the taxpayers much more effectively, efficiently and quickly.
In fact, by raising this question, my colleague puts his finger
on the core issue of the access to information reform, he touches
on the whole philosophy underlying this bill, a philosophy
mainly centred on maximizing the efficiency of the federal
administration.
(1715)
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting,
especially one phrase. The phrase was trust the government. I
would like to be able to do that. To many degrees we must trust
the government and in many instances we can trust the
government.
I was particularly impressed with an earlier member opposite
who seemed to be more in line with what the Reform Party was
thinking about, taking a position that was consistent with the
constituents rather than with the party position at that time. For
a while I was wondering whether he was going to walk across the
floor or whether he was going to stay where he was. I
appreciated that.
I really want to come back to this member's statement when
he asked us to trust the government and understand that the
purpose of the bill was to protect services to make sure that the
pensioners get their pensions and things of that sort. I certainly
commend him for doing that.
I am very concerned about the future of the pensions that will
be available for our seniors. Of course we do not want to cut
their benefits. How does the member opposite intend to make an
efficient system distribute money that is not there? How is he
going to guarantee that there will be adequate money for the
pensions to be paid out? We could have the most efficient system
in the world. We could build the best car around, but if there is
no gas for it the car will not go any where.
Therefore I ask the member opposite where is the money
coming from that he says will be available? He says that they
will not touch the seniors' pensions that are there, particularly
not those who are getting the benefits now. Does he not realize
the benefits that are currently being received by pensioners are
coming out of the contributions that are currently being
provided? How will he guarantee that will be the case later when
7008
there will be more people taking benefits than those who are
contributing to the plan?
There is no actuarially significant foundation for the Canada
pension plan as it is at the present time. Could the hon. member
explain in a little more detail how he intends to make sure that
we can trust with confidence the government?
[Translation]
Mr. Cauchon: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. When we talk about trusting the government, you
need only take a glance at the opinion polls in Canada to see that
the Liberal government enjoys the support-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Cauchon: I see that it hurts when people tell the truth, but
the Liberal government has most people's support.
Now for the question of where we will get the money to
continue paying pensions, I said that the Liberal Party is
committed to protecting seniors and old age pensions and that is
what we will continue to do. If there is ever a reform, it will be
for later generations and not for those who today are collecting
the benefits to which they contributed.
We as the Liberal Party and the government are acting
responsibly. We are making a social choice based on respect for
those who built this federation.
(1720)
Basically, I find it quite odious that such a question can be
raised today. Clearly, the answer depends on a social choice, a
logical social choice. Of course, if the Reform Party were in
power, a party which is obviously suffering from the ostrich
syndrome and all they do is try to make cuts everywhere, society
would have no services. This government promised something
in the election campaign and that is what we are doing: to be a
responsible government which will attack the deficit while
continuing to meet our obligations and maintain services for
everyone. I want to tell you that seniors are a priority for us and
we will respect them.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-54, an act to amend the
Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, Children's
Special Allowance Act, and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
While the acts which the bill amends represent a significant
portion of the federal component of Canada's income support
system, the amendments are classified as minor administrative
changes. Bill C-54 seeks to improve administrative efficiency.
The Reform Party is supportive of efforts by the government
to streamline the delivery of services to the public. Any
streamlining is more than welcome. What Reform members
would ultimately like to see is an immediate overhaul of the
programs to ensure long term financial sustainability for
Canada's entire social security system.
The massive debt that has accumulated and the interest
payments needed to service that debt taken out of every year's
budget have been increasing yearly. The portion of the federal
budget pie that goes toward social programs has been shrinking
as a direct consequence of the federal debt and the
accompanying interest payments. That is why the Reform Party
constantly states that the debt is the nation's number one
problem and is the greatest threat to our social programs.
Our position has been misinterpreted, misconstrued and
misrepresented. We have been portrayed by government and
those on the left as ogres with axes in our hands, ready and
willing to swing those axes any time we get near social
spending. This characterization is grossly unfair.
What Reformers have realized and realized over a year ago is
that if we continue on the road of excess debt and borrowing our
social programs will by necessity have less and less of the
federal pie every year. The longer we ignore the debt problem,
the worse the situation becomes for our social program.
The Minister of Finance, in his two-day presentation to the
finance committee, presented a good analysis of the way in
which the debt affects our economy, our standard of living, our
social programs, and it was all for the worst. The minister
outlined how the debt begins a vicious circle. I would like to
quote from page 3 of the presentation the minister made on
Tuesday, ``Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate'':
Interest on the debt is doing more than shackling our finances. It is putting a
damper on growth and jobs. Lenders looking at our debt demand a premium.
That means higher interest rates. Higher interest rates dampen consumer
spending and business investment, hurting potential growth and jobs. That in
turn reduces the revenue government receives and increases our spending on
social programs, increasing the pressure on our deficit. Those higher interest
rates in and of themselves also add to our debt charge as we borrow to pay for
the higher interest. Those higher levels of debt then put more pressure on
interest rates to rise. And the vicious circle goes on and on and on.
I commend the minister for attempting to lay aside partisan
politics in his analysis of the effects of the debt. He can expect
constructive support and guidance from the Reform Party for
viable efforts to control the deficit. He can also expect calls
from this party that his own target of 3 per cent of the GDP, a
deficit of approximately $25 billion in two years, is simply
unacceptable. It is also unacceptable by his own analysis of the
negative effects on the debt. For the sake of long term financial
sustainability of our social programs the government should set
a goal of zero deficit by the end of this Parliament.
7009
(1725)
The Liberals ran and by many accounts won the election on
the issue of job creation. Their main proposal was the $6 billion
infrastructure program intended to simulate job growth in the
entire economy. The Liberals saw the program as the key to
restoring hope and dignity to those on government assistance.
Reformers on the other hand have consistently put forward the
view that the best stimulant for job creation and decreased
government dependence is a serious attack on the deficit and the
debt. By reducing our deficit we will be setting in motion
positive effects that will create jobs which will in turn provide
less demand on some of our social programs.
I want to quote the Minister of Finance once more on this
subject:
Facing up to the debt challenge is the keystone of a responsible economic
policy. If we fail at that, we will fail at everything else. It is not a question of
focusing on jobs or the debt. It is question of focusing on both. The debt stands in
the way of the growth we seek; in a very real way, it limits our economy's ability to
create jobs. The fact is that we will not get the quality of growth we need to
generate jobs we want until we gain control of the debt, until we have broken the
back of the deficit.
I must applaud the government on the progress it has made in
its thinking on this subject. In the first few months of Parliament
the Reform Party's views on the debt and cutting of spending
were characterized as letting people starve. Now our views are
being repeated and strongly emphasized in the process by the
Minister of Finance.
My point in talking about the debt is trying to explain its
effect on social spending, the so-called vicious circle I referred
to earlier. For just as there is a vicious circle for high debt and
excess borrowing, there is also a good or a positive circle if we
reduce the debt.
The lower the deficit and the debt, the lower the interest rates.
Lower interest rates mean more consumer spending, business
investments and increasing growth in jobs. That in turn
increases employment and decreases reliance on social
assistance giving people the opportunity and the dignity to
work. The decreasing reliance on social assistance means less
pressure on social programs and less pressure on government
revenues.
Cutting the deficit is not an end in itself. It is a means to an
end. That end is stronger growth, increased employment,
decreased dependence on government and perhaps, dare I say it,
lower taxes. However reaching these goals requires cutting
spending and any real cuts in spending will include cuts in our
social programs.
We in the House should be honest and recognize that the
present social security reform discussion the minister of human
resources has started is not only about reform but is also about
saving money. Unfortunately after a year in the House it is only a
discussion paper. It would be more preferable to be an action
plan.
The most basic, most effective way the government could
save money in this area without hurting the most unfortunate in
our society is to target our social programs toward those in the
most need. Applying the concept of universality to every social
program we have simply undermines the long term financial
sustainability of our social programs.
Another basic principle that should be applied to social
programs is that they should be meant to be temporary measures
to help those who are down, not permanent measures to create an
unhealthy dependence on government.
In conclusion, the best course of action the government could
take to ensure the survival of our social safety net is to upgrade
its deficit reduction targets and to design social programs to
target those most in need.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7009
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That this House urge the government to introduce legislation to restore the
tax on tobacco to the level existing at January 1, 1994, and to apply the revenue
from the tax on tobacco to health care.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today with varying emotions.
On one hand it saddens me to have to present this motion, but on
the other hand, it infuriates me.
The motion I am bringing to the House today, a motion to
restore tobacco taxes back to the level they were in January 1994
and apply this revenue to health care is something we should not
need to be discussing here at all. Unfortunately, I have been
pushed to do this, given the tax rollback that occurred on
February 8, 1994.
The reason for my sadness is that this reduction enacted by the
government poses the single greatest threat to the health care of
Canadians in the last 50 years. No legislation will have a more
7010
detrimental effect on the health of Canadians than anything that
has gone on in recent history. This is particularly germane to the
youth of the country.
This rollback will cause hundreds of thousands of people to
take up smoking, half of whom will die of cigarette related
illnesses such as pancreatic cancer, lung cancer and suffer from
illnesses such as chronic obstructive lung disease, a disease that
tears away at the very fibres of somebody's lungs so that if they
were to walk from where I am to where you are, Madam Speaker,
they would be severely short of breath and exhausted.
We are not even talking about the pain and suffering that is
endured by the hidden victims of this, the families of the
patients.
Already in the six months after the rollback the sales of
cigarettes are up 41 per cent. The number of people smoking has
also increased, especially among youth, going from 23 per cent
to 27 per cent now. This trend is completely opposite to what
was going on since 1982 when the tobacco taxes were raised and
the cost increased.
I am chagrined that the standing committee of management
has decided not to make this motion votable. This issue was
highly contentious back in February. The vast majority of the
public opposed it, virtually every health care professional
vehemently opposed it, and yet the government brought it
forward.
If this motion had been made votable it would have enabled
members to truly represent the wishes of their constituents and
vote for this motion which would have such a significant impact
on the health and welfare of Canadians.
Before we look at the reasons for my motion and the
constructive solutions that I pose, it is wise for us to look at the
situation that existed in February 1994. Up until that time
Canada was a leader in the fight against tobacco consumption.
Interestingly enough, in 1979 virtually half of all 15 to 19 year
olds smoked. However, because of the increase in taxes on
cigarettes and the cost, by 1991 this percentage had fallen to 16
per cent, something of which Canada was justifiably very proud.
This rate of reduction was unparalleled in the world. The
cause of this was cost.
It is estimated that had the proportion of tobacco users in
Canada remained at 1979 levels, there would currently be three
million more smokers in this country today. All statistics show
this powerful relationship between price and consumption.
As a result of these tax increases, a price differential existed
between Canada and the United States in the order of $48 a
carton in Canada to $25 a carton in the United States. This was a
double-edged sword and the smuggling of contraband cigarettes
became rampant. Cigarettes were exported legally into the
United States but were illegally brought back into Canada,
primarily through the reserves in Quebec. Some contraband was
brought in through other conduits, private cars and through the
mail routes, but they were minimal compared to what was
occurring on the three reserves in Quebec.
(1735)
When analysing the smuggling, it is wise to divide up the
situation between Quebec and the rest of the country. The
smuggling that was occurring in Quebec had a profound effect
on the lives of the people living there. Quebec represents 30 per
cent of cigarette consumption, 70 per cent in the rest of the
country. In Quebec one-third of the cigarettes that were
purchased were purchased legally and two-thirds were
purchased illegally, a complete reversal to what was occurring
in the rest of the country.
Also at this time a tragedy was occurring. The smuggling was
occurring right before the noses of our judiciary and our police
forces. They were directed to look the other way. Why? To avoid
confrontation, to avoid an Oka situation that nobody wanted. It
is completely unfair to have a legal situation that looks at the
law and enforces the law in one area and in another area does
not.
The smuggling not only occurs in contraband cigarettes but
also involves drugs, liquor and illegal weapons, all of which are
occurring right now. Getting rid of the smuggling of tobacco
does not get rid of the smuggling of other contraband.
Outside of Quebec and parts of southern Ontario the
smuggling was minimal. This was the dilemma that we were in.
How the government reacted was appalling and incurred the
anguish of many Canadians and every health care professional
in the country. The reaction had the primary effect of increasing
legal consumption of cigarettes and decreasing illegal
consumption of cigarettes, which was worthy, and eliminating
the smuggling of contraband cigarettes which is to be
applauded. However there is another way of doing this.
They also brought in to eliminate these channels the export
tax of $8, a pledge to increase enforcement and education
against smoking, all of which I applaud.
Now that we have analysed the situation, let us look at the
impact that this tobacco rollback had on the financial cost and
the human cost of Canadians.
Let us look at the financial cost first. The loss of revenue to
the provincial governments is massive. Tax revenues on
cigarettes are estimated to decrease from $5.5 billion to $2.3
billion per year, a loss of $3 billion outside of Quebec. In
Quebec tax revenues will decrease from $774 million to $559
million per year, roughly a $210 million decrease. The total loss
in revenue to the public purse is $3.2 billion. The loss to gross
national product is very difficult to quantify but in my province
of
7011
British Columbia it is estimated that if the decreases go ahead
that it will cost $150 million per year.
Let us look at the human cost, something impossible for us to
quantify. For every 10 per cent decrease in cost the overall cost
in consumption is between 4 and 9 per cent for the general
public. In youth and teenagers the major factor in determining
consumption is cost. It results in a 14 per cent increase in
consumption for every 10 per cent decrease in cost.
Thus we can see that the tax rollback has had a devastating
effect on the health of Canadians, particularly in that group
which is most vulnerable, the youth.
As I said in my opening statement, this has already been borne
out. By the most conservative of estimates a 50 per cent decrease
in price will result in a national increase of 14 per cent in
consumption but in teenagers this increase is 35 per cent which
translates into 840,000 smokers, 175,000 of which are
teenagers.
Let us look at a more realistic view. It is a more chilling view.
A 50 per cent decrease in cost will result in a 45 per cent increase
in consumption which is close to the 41 per cent I originally
mentioned. This is going to add 1.8 million more smokers to the
list, of which 250,000 are teenagers. This great effect of
consumption will not be in the areas where smuggling was
maximal but in areas where it will be minimal. Tragically for the
people who live in Quebec and for those in southern Ontario, the
effect has already been felt because they have been consuming
cheap cigarettes for a while.
(1740)
The World Health Organization recently estimated, after long
study, that 50 per cent of all smokers will die as a result of
tobacco consumption. It kills in at least 24 ways. Each smoker
will get 20 years knocked off their life expectancy.
To put it in more graphic terms, it will result in many times
more deaths than all the people who died in World War I and
World War II combined.
The increase in health costs are staggering. Smokers currently
cost the health care system approximately $9.5 billion a year.
The increase in consumption will result in an increase in health
care costs of between $1.3 and $3 billion every year. Our health
care system does not need this at all, it is in desperate need of
funding currently.
The combined increase in health care costs and loss of
revenue is between $4 and $6 billion per year to the Canadian
taxpayer. This does not include the costs we are going to suffer
in our loss of gross national product.
The Minister of Health stated that she wants Canada to
exchange and share her expertise with other countries in an
effort to decrease smoking. Madam Speaker, I hope not. I hope
we do not do this. What she wishes to share is an increase in
human suffering, an increase in death, an increase in deficits. I
hope no country in the world learns those lessons.
The minister also stated that she would do anything to save
even one life from the results of tobacco consumption, and in
particular the youth. If this is true, then I have some constructive
solutions.
First, continue with the $8 export tax. It was a very worthy
move. It has proven it works. We have an example. In February
1992 the then government instituted an export tax of $8 per
carton, the same as was instituted by this government. In four
weeks it decreased the smuggling of contraband cigarettes by 60
per cent. It is important to remember this figure.
Second, enforce the law. Do not allow the law to be applied
differently in different areas. We have one law in this country.
To apply it differently in different areas is a travesty of the law.
We must all bear in mind that the smuggling conduits that exist
involve other contraband, not only cigarettes. The only way to
address the smuggling is to enforce the law. This is imperative.
Also, nobody speaks about the law-abiding citizens who live
on the reserves. What about the effects the illegal activities
through the smuggling of contraband has on their lives? Why
should we apply the law any differently for them than we apply it
to people outside the reserves?
These two efforts by themselves will have a dramatic impact
on smuggling. As I said before, the export tax alone had a
dramatic effect. There is no need to produce these tax rollbacks
that are going to have such a devastating effect on the health of
Canadians.
In order to decrease consumption, particularly among
teenagers, it is imperative that we bring the cost of cigarettes
back up to where it was. As I have said before, this is the number
one factor in consumption. If we do what I said before, then we
would be honestly imparting knowledge to other countries of
which we can truly be proud.
The current rollback in taxes is a large blight on the country's
health care system. The other aspect of my motion is to utilize
the funds from the taxes to apply to a health care system, a
system that is in critical shape and needs emergency care.
Our current health care system is caught between a rock and a
hard place. On the one hand we have an increasing demand from
an aging population and more expensive technologies, on the
other hand we have a system of decreasing funding and
squeezing an increasing deficit. If we manage to go ahead and
apply this money to our health care system we would be able to
give it
7012
an injection of capital that the health care of the people of this
country desperately need. Right now the provinces are forced to
engage in the deplorable concept of rationing. They are
rationing essential health care services-bypass surgery, hip
operations, the closure of hospital beds. All these things are
occurring and are compromising the health care of Canadians.
This past week the head of the Heart Institute here in Ottawa said
that the waiting time for bypass surgery is now five months.
(1745)
If one needs a new hip in this country and are in severe pain,
that category of people who are in severe pain, 40 per cent of
those individuals will wait at least 13 months to get their hip
operation after spending that time in severe pain, a travesty in a
country that is as affluent as ours.
Another benefit of raising the taxes on cigarettes is that the
moneys can be applied to a public anti-smoking campaign. I
advise this government that the greatest impact that it will have
on youth is between applying those moneys to an anti-smoking
campaign for them between the ages of eight and seventeen, the
age at which 90 per cent of the individuals who smoke take up
this habit, a habit that is the second most addictive one that we
know, more addictive than heroine.
To that end I would like to briefly give members a testimonial
from a 13-year old girl who wrote a letter that was actually
published in Newsweek:
Right now I am 13 and I am going into ninth grade and started smoking in the
sixth. The first cigarette that I ever had was in fifth grade.
I have tried to quit, but it is very hard when all my friends smoke, too.
Some people think that Joe Camel is directed towards teenagers.
She is referring to advertisements.
I do not think so. If they are trying to get it directed towards teenagers, they
are doing a pretty bad job. I am sorry, but a goofy looking camel who smokes his
brains out does not quite turn me on. Actually, I have never seen an ad that made
me want to smoke a particular brand. All those cigarette ads are practically the
same.
She is 13. On health she says:
Since I have started smoking I can hardly run around the block without
getting out of breath. A lot of my friends have gotten asthma. My mom and dad
quit smoking about 14 years ago, and my mom now has cancer and my dad has
had three heart attacks. My grandma quit eight years ago, and she has
emphysema. Not only that-my two grandfathers died from the results of
smoking. After all these problems, you would think I would know better than to
smoke. But I guess I do not.
I cannot tell that I smell when I smoke, but my parents and other can. I
remember one time, before I smoked, I left my jacket at my friend Brynn's
House. Her whole family smoked. I got the jacket back around five months later,
and I had to throw it away because it smelled like an ashtray.
It is funny, but I think it is easier to give up drugs than cigarettes.
I really hate the thought of quitting. But yet, I do not want to do anything that
might make cigarettes more expensive to buy. You see, I am really hooked on
cigarettes.
I would suggest that the government does not emphasize its
advertisements on showing a group of yuppy Rosedale teenagers
playing basketball and turning into cigarettes. Rather, we have
to face the facts that teenagers believe they are immortal. There
is another way of dealing with this. It will not work to tell them
that they are going to die of lung cancer or mouth cancer 40
years from now because they believe they are immortal.
I feel it would be far more potent to threaten their sense of
narcissism. Tell them that their breath smells foul. Tell them that
their hair smells foul and tell them that their skin will become
pallid.
In conclusion, I hope that this government which promised to
bring back the taxes to where they were and has not made any
efforts whatsoever to do this will take it in its heart to look at the
facts.
Smuggling is under control. It can continue to be under
control with the export tax and enforcement. It needs to apply
those taxes to the health care and welfare of Canadians. One
does not need to keep a tax rollback and compromise the health
and welfare of the people of this country and sacrifice
smuggling as a result. One can do both without sacrificing the
health care of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, considering the success of the government's
anti-smuggling policy, I would never have expected to hear
comments like those the hon. member made today. I admit-in
fact, I am proud of it-that I was one of those who pushed for
lower tobacco taxes.
(1750)
As you know, I have the honour and the privilege of
representing the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and
the Akwesasne Native community. It is indeed an honour and a
privilege as I have great respect for my constituents living on the
reserve.
I am arguing today against raising the taxes on tobacco, and
not because I want cheap cigarettes for myself or my family.
Three years ago, I lost my father to a type of cancer believed to
be caused by smoking. I do not smoke and smoking is prohibited
in my offices. Smoking was prohibited in my offices before it
was banned elsewhere on Parliament Hill. That is not the point.
Here in the House of Commons, I raised questions on
numerous occasions about the cigarette smuggling problem. I
remember that, in June 1993, I asked then Solicitor General
Doug
7013
Lewis-I think it was the last question raised in the House
before it adjourned prior to the election-to do something about
this problem which was almost out of control in our region. The
problem was going from bad to worse.
This is the question that I raised, which I will repeat for you
and for all my colleagues: ``Almost every night machine gun fire
is heard and speedboats are running the rivers at full speed in the
dark with their lights turned off pursuing criminal activity. I am
not describing life in Sarajevo or Mogadishu. I am describing
the practice of tobacco smuggling on the St. Lawrence River
near Glengarry in my riding. I want to ask a question to the
Solicitor General on the last day of this Parliament. What
precisely does the government intend to do to stop this illegal
activity which endangers the lives and safety of my
constituents?''
That was the last question raised, not the first one. For years I
had been asking the government to take action to put a stop to
this illegal activity. Nothing was done at the time. The
government of the day let the situation deteriorate to the point
where in Quebec and in eastern Ontario-the problem did not
only exist in Quebec; in fact, most of the Akwesasne reserve is
located in Ontario-70 to 75 per cent of cigarettes on the market
were smuggled. The level of illegal activity was such that it
endangered the lives of my constituents. In fact, some of them
were killed. The member opposite talks about saving lives.
[English]
I would like to read a little story written by Claude McIntosh,
the associate editor of the Standard-Freeholder of Cornwall,
from Saturday, July 3, 1993. He was describing what he referred
to as the dark side of cigarette smuggling. He recalls a few
incidents. Here are a few I would like to share:
A Cornwall welfare recipient switched to a supplier selling cartons $1
cheaper than his previous supplier. His old supplier fearful of losing other
accounts paid him a visit. During the conversation he had his arm broken in an
accident. He went back to the previous supplier. Welfare recipients are sought
out because they are one, more willing to take the chance and two, available day
and night.
Here is another incident. A teacher ordered a disruptive
student out of the classroom. On his way out the student reached
into his pocket, pulled out a wad of bills and sneered: ``I do not
need your education''. The student works as a runner in one of
the cigarette smuggling cartels with potential to earn more in six
months than the teacher earns in one year. He earns bonuses for
recruiting other students.
(1755)
Mr. Stinson: Did you report him?
Mr. Boudria: If the member had been listening, paying a bit
of attention, I was reading from a newspaper article.
Mr. Hanrahan: Why did anybody not report him?
Mr. Boudria: The member across who just made this remark
should know this is no laughing matter. We had all the police
officers we could round up trying to enforce the law on the St.
Lawrence River in a forested area at night.
This business got so lucrative during one period that they
were actually crossing shipments into Canada by helicopter. It
got to be that bad. We have a border between Canada and the
United States four thousand miles long. One day I was raising
this problem with members across who asked why the military
was not brought in. Is it the position of the Reform Party, or was
it at that time, to have a militarized border four thousand miles
long between Canada and the United States?
I am told by people in the know that drug smugglers and
others have got out of that business. There was a lot more money
to be made in cigarettes. That is where the real money was. That
is the situation we had.
I have a report prepared by a forensic and investigative
accounting firm known as Lindquist Avey Macdonald
Baskerville. That accounting firm had on its staff none other
than Rod Stamler, former deputy commissioner of the RCMP, no
fool by anyone's account. He described to us how severe this
problem was. We had the commissioner of the RCMP give a
letter to the Prime Minister which was tabled in this House that
said the way to control the crime was reduced to that and only
that solution.
I had been saying it to the previous government for years. The
previous government would not listen. This Prime Minister,
within weeks of seeing the danger to the lives of Canadians and
the damage it was doing to Canadian society to see this kind of
disrespect for law, took action. I congratulate him.
Mr. White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Now it is going to kill
teenagers.
Mr. Boudria: If I get nothing else from my riding in all the
years I will be an MP, and I hope that is another long time, I will
be happy because at least I was able to do this. At least I was able
to do the right thing.
Mr. White (North Vancouver, Ref.): You transferred the
problem to teenagers.
Mr. Boudria: I did not transfer anything or pass off anything
to anyone else.
The members across say they stand for law and order yet they
know and the police have told us that was the only possible
action we could have taken, and it was the right action.
They say they are against increasing taxes. The leader of the
Reform Party stood here yesterday and asked for a commitment
not to increase taxes. Today in the dark hours of the day when
few reporters are listening we have a private member's bill from
a member of the same caucus advocating an increase in taxes.
7014
Mr. Grubel: That is a cheap shot.
Mr. Boudria: It is not a cheap shot.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): It is a cheap
shot.
Mr. Boudria: I do not care if the members think it is cheap or
not, this is an important issue. It affects the lives and safety of
many Canadians, including my constituents.
I want to say one final thing in the moment or two that is left
about respect for law. If it is cheap cigarettes that we wanted to
keep off the market, cheap cigarettes were there. They were
there and they were sold in schools. It was easier to get illegal
cigarettes than legal ones with the contraband that we had. That
was the reality.
Finally, what kind of message were we giving to young people
in Canada when we were tolerating in society a situation in
which the smuggler in the school drove the Corvette while the
kids who were obeying the law were walking? That was the
situation we had. That was the kind of crime we had and $2
billion a year was made by the underworld in this country. That
is what this government was able to stop by its action. I am
proud of what it did. Consumption of cigarettes has not
increased. On August 18, 1994 the Minister of Health tabled a
report. It said quite clearly that smoking had remained flat
overall and had not increased. That is the truth. That is the
reality. The action taken was the right and proper one.
(1800)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, B.Q.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan
de Fuca, who argued his case so eloquently. I must say that the
question of restoring the tax on tobacco to the level that existed
on January 1, 1994 is a difficult subject. I will consider two
aspects of this question.
First of all, I would like to recall, as did the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the situation that existed when
the tax was abolished. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca mentioned the fact that the price of a carton of cigarettes in
Canada was up to $48, twenty dollars more than in the United
States. The result was a brisk trade in contraband cigarettes. The
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell referred to the
impact of cigarette smuggling in Eastern Ontario and the
Montreal region.
However, its impact was also felt in regions assumed to be
safe, including my own region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
which is 300 kilometres from the U.S. border. We had never had
a problem with cigarette smuggling.
During the last six months or year the tax was in effect, we
started seeing contraband cigarettes in the region. At meetings I
saw honest people take out packs of cigarettes marked with the
insignia of the U.S. surgeon general, which meant they were
contraband U.S. cigarettes. I saw this at meetings of normally
law-abiding citizens who do not deal with smuggling rings of
any kind.
These people took out their packs of cigarettes without a care
in the world and thought nothing of it. It had reached the point
where honest citizens did not realize they were breaking the law,
because as I see it, that is what they were doing. There are taxes
which are levied to provide services. At the time we had a
situation where honest citizens felt they could break the law. It
was a very bad situation.
In fact, a cigarette smuggler in my region was interviewed. Of
course, it was all anonymous. You only saw his profile, and you
could hardly recognize him. This guy boasted that he made one
million dollars in eight months by hauling truck-load after
truck-load of cigarettes into an area 300 kilometres from the
border. The situation was truly disgraceful.
But even worse, while this cigarette smuggling network was
spreading to my own riding, alcohol smuggling networks,
clothes smuggling networks, even jewellery smuggling
networks were sprouting. In other words, a number of products
which, in the past, had never been smuggled, were becoming fair
game for smugglers, and this, in an area like mine which is
considered too far from the borders and where smuggling is
rather unusual.
I think it was time that Canada took steps to curb this
smuggling.
(1805)
Of course my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
was instrumental in this, but you will recall that, for weeks, the
Bloc Quebecois had been asking the government to roll back
taxes on cigarettes because we believed that it was the only way
to go. We had tried to bring this plague under control. My
colleague described very accurately all the efforts which were
made. We had reached the point where we were thinking of
bringing in the army. When you find yourself in this kind of
situation, you must realize that you have made a mistake, that
taxes are too high, that it is too enticing, too tempting for
everybody.
As was normal under these circumstances, we lowered taxes
on tobacco. And in so doing, we removed much of the cancer
that smuggling is.
At the same time, we perhaps avoided another cancer, the one
that occurs when citizens start to think that they do not have to
follow the rules and to abide by the tax laws. If one can stop
paying taxes on tobacco and get away with it, why would one
pay taxes on clothing, gas or anything else? Measures had to be
taken, I think. And the measures that were taken were adequate.
Of course, this did not solve the tobacco problem. As my
colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca rightly said, this is a
huge problem in our society. To me, tobacco is a hard drug. I
have friends who have tried to quit smoking but without success.
7015
It probably is as difficult as getting rid of other drugs that are
illegal in Canada.
Nevertheless, we came to a point where we had to choose
between two evils. I think that, under the circumstances, we
temporarily chose the lesser of the two. It does not mean that
taxes on cigarettes will be abolished forever. It does not mean
that they will not be raised some time in the future-and I think
that the Minister of Finance will keep an eye on the situation. I
believe that taxes will be raised again, but they will be kept
within reasonable limits so that the high price of cigarettes does
not become, for some people, an illegal means of making a quick
buck.
That does not prevent us, however, from paying particular
attention to the growing problem of cigarette smoking.
Like the hon. member, I have also seen young men and women
of 15, 16 or 17-I taught in high schools for years and I was
stunned to see young 16-and 17-year olds develop a smoking
habit. In spite of all the information campaigns and all the
pressing requests made, these young people started or continued
to smoke. Why? Is it simply a matter of being informed? Let us
just say that I am less affirmative than the hon. member; I do not
know what the solution is. I do not know exactly what to do to
keep our young people from smoking.
I know the situation is very serious and the description made
by the member was truly frightening. He may be right in a sense,
but then should we prohibit cigarette smoking the same as
cannabis, marijuana, cocaine and all these other drugs? I do not
think this is possible in a society like ours. I think we will have
to compromise; we will have to pursue our efforts to create an
awareness and convince young people not to develop this habit.
It is important to do so.
I regret to say that I will not support this motion. I believe it is
motivated by good intentions. However, under the
circumstances and given the situation that prevailed in recent
years, it was necessary to greatly reduce taxes on tobacco.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of this
motion tonight, a motion that was brought forward by my hon.
friend and colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
(1810 )
Members of this House will remember our debates on Bill
C-11 and Bill C-32 when we warned the government of the
serious health consequences and the human suffering this tax
reduction on cigarettes would cost. This motion would correct
the government's major mistake and would restore that tax on
tobacco to the level existing as of January 1 of this year.
Our concerns about the government's tax reduction on
cigarettes were confirmed when the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Health appeared before the Standing Committee
on Finance on June 7 and advised that the government's goal was
``to reduce the demand for tobacco, the number one cause of
preventable death in Canada''. She went on to say: ``The
government fully recognized that the action plan to combat
smuggling and the tax measures associated with it would pose
health risks''. That is from a government member, despite what I
hear from across the floor today.
It is inconceivable to me and most Reformers how
government can rationalize its goal of preventing death with its
actions which will increase smoking and cause many hundreds
of deaths.
This government does not seem to have the courage or the
intestinal fortitude to do what is right. We were opposed to the
tax reduction on cigarettes and tobacco products because it will
increase smoking and that cannot be denied, particularly among
young people. As a result it will increase health costs.
Reformers find it amazing that the government caved in to the
criminal element of society so quickly. It sends the wrong signal
to those who would break the law. In effect the Liberal
government said: ``If you defy the law we will change the law
rather than enforce it''.
Reformers find it hard to believe that the government did not
take a more reasonable approach and impose an effective export
tax and increase enforcement in the areas where the majority of
smuggling was occurring.
Even the commissioner of the RCMP confirmed in February
that 70 per cent of the contraband tobacco was coming through
the three Mohawk reserves between Cornwall and Montreal.
Therefore all this we hear about big borders is simply a
smoke-screen. If that was where the problem was, why not have
the courage to enforce the laws of Canada? What are we doing
now when the criminal element redirects its smuggling
activities to alcohol, drugs and guns? Are we going to simply
change the law on that as well? One bad decision leads to more
problems and not solutions. The government has not solved a
thing by what it has done.
The main point I would like to make today is in regard to the
government's disregard for the health of the Canadian people,
particularly young people. When the government first
introduced its national action campaign to combat smuggling in
February, we asked the government to tell us what the increased
health costs would be. How many people will start smoking as a
result of the tax reduction? How many Canadians will become
addicted? How many people will get lung cancer and
emphysema, heart disease and strokes? How many people will
suffer or
7016
die as a result of the government's tax reduction? How much
will it cost the Canadian taxpayer? The government
implemented Bill C-32 despite not having the answers to these
very important questions.
While the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
has made it clear that the tax reduction would pose increased
health risks, these risks, the costs and the implications for
government and the human suffering have not been quantified.
Months have gone by with no action by the Liberals.
The Canadian Cancer Society asked the Standing Committee
on Finance to complete a thorough evaluation of the health costs
and implications of smoking in Canada because such an
evaluation has not been done since 1986. Reformers find this
appalling.
During debate on Bill C-32 the members of the finance
committee listened politely to witness after witness warning
them of the serious health consequences. The committee
ignored the dozens of excellent recommendations and passed
the clause by clause study of Bill C-32 in less than 15 seconds.
The clause by clause review of a 62 page bill was done in less
than 15 seconds. This is democracy? Is it any wonder that
Reformers are pushing for a triple E Senate where we can give
some serious and thoughtful sober second thought to the
reasoned amendments that we proposed and debated very
intelligently?
(1815)
What will the increased health costs be? The Canadian Cancer
Society provided the Standing Committee on Finance with some
of the estimates prepared by Professor Robert Allen from the
department of economics at Harvard University.
Using Professor Allen's most conservative estimates, he
predicted that national cigarette consumption would rise by 14
per cent among adults and 35 per cent among young people. Now
we find those estimates were very conservative. Actual
increases have been 41 per cent, as has been mentioned by my
colleague. The tax reduction implemented by the Liberals will
increase the total number of tobacco users in Canada by
840,000. Of this number 175,000 would be teenagers. At this
rate Professor Allen predicted health costs would rise in the long
term by $1.33 billion per year. That was the most conservative
estimate.
Every piece of literature that comes out on this shows there is
an increase. How can the government close its eyes and be blind
to what is happening? These are Professor Allen's most
conservative estimates, as I have said. It could be even higher. It
could be as high as 1.89 million new smokers and of these
245,000 would be young people. That would mean $3 billion in
increased health care costs, $3 billion, three thousand millions.
Still the government fails to even tell Canadians what the
impact will be. It refuses to even conduct its own evaluation of
health costs and implications, ignoring the health of Canadians.
Liberals love to do studies; they love to have commissions. They
like to have all of these consultants tell them things, but when it
comes to this issue they close their ears.
During our debate on Bill C-32 we asked the government for a
timetable showing when tobacco taxes will start to go up again.
None was given. The government acknowledged the dramatic
effect that high taxes have on tobacco consumption. It
acknowledged that the health promotion surtax will end in three
years, but it still has not told Canadians what it plans to do at the
end of three years.
During the previous debate we asked the government to make
a commitment to raise prices to their level prior to February 8,
1994 at the end of the three years when the health promotion
surtax is renewed. Reformers proposed such an amendment, but
we were told that only the minister could make such an
amendment. The minister chose to ignore this reasonable
proposal.
If the government will not support my hon. friend's motion,
Reformers respectfully request that the minister introduce a new
bill clearly telling Canadians when tobacco taxes will be
increased. For the sake of the health of all Canadians, for the
sake of all those young people who will take up smoking as a
direct result of government's actions, will the government tell
Canadians today this is not a permanent tax reduction? Will the
government tell Canadians that their health is of more concern
to it than the interests of a few smugglers in the tobacco
industry?
Government ministers are always accusing us of never telling
them what to do. They yell and they shout at us like we do not
have a plan, but our blue book has been around a lot longer than
their red book.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member's time
has expired. The hon. member for Essex-Windsor and
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must rise today
to oppose Motion No. 288 before us. While I appreciate the
concern for Canadian health that motivates the hon. member, I
cannot agree this is the time for the backward steps he is
proposing. It is quite the opposite.
(1820 )
I feel there are very good reasons why the federal government
should maintain the current level of federal tobacco taxes. Just
as important, the government should also adhere to the general
practice of avoiding earmarked taxes. Let me explain why I
believe this to be true.
Hon. members will recall that just nine months ago we were
besieged by the black market sale of tax free exports of
Canadian cigarettes which were being smuggled back into
Canada. Indeed, contraband tobacco products which often sold
for less than half the price of legal sales were accounting for an
estimated 40 per cent share of Canada's $12.4 billion tobacco
7017
market. The country was confronted with a very serious
problem.
Tobacco smuggling was fostering disrespect for our laws and
creating serious law enforcement problems. Organized crime
networks controlled 95 per cent of the tobacco smuggling. Their
tobacco profits helped to fund other illegal activities, including
drugs, alcohol and firearms smuggling. Cheap contraband
cigarettes were readily available to young Canadians and the
problems of smuggling and the attitude of too many Canadians
that avoiding tobacco taxes was a sort of game may well have
added to the tobacco's appeal to impressionable youngsters.
The consequences were serious. It was undermining the
government's health policy objective to reduce tobacco
consumption, particularly among youth. As well, many
law-abiding merchants were being pushed out of business by the
underground sales.
I want to inform the House that the federal and provincial
governments were also being deprived of the tobacco tax
revenues, $1 billion for each level of government in 1993, that
helped to pay for government services and programs that
Canadians expect.
To combat this illegal activity, on February 8, 1994 the Prime
Minister introduced the action plan on smuggling. That plan
includes an enforcement crackdown, reduced taxes on tobacco
products, measures affecting tobacco manufacturers and a
health promotion surtax on tobacco manufacturers' profits to
provide significant funding for health related anti-smoking
initiatives.
The enforcement crackdown entails increased RCMP and
customs personnel and equipment dedicated to fighting
smuggling. Their efforts are particularly aimed at stopping the
flow of contraband at key spots along the Canada-U.S. border.
Federal excise taxes have also been reduced by $5 per carton.
Up to a maximum federal reduction of $10 we offered to match
on a dollar for dollar basis provincial reductions above $5. Most
provinces east of Manitoba have reduced their tobacco taxes.
The action plan also imposed an export tax of $8 per carton on
Canadian tobacco exports. This reflected the fact that 80 per
cent of the cigarettes sold on the black market were Canadian
cigarettes manufactured for export.
In addition, the federal tax rate on corporate profits for
manufacturing and processing tobacco products was increased
by 40 per cent. The revenue generated by this surtax will fund
Canada's largest ever anti-smoking campaign.
The government has also undertaken to ban the manufacture
of kiddie packs which were targeted at young buyers. It also
moved to increase the legal age for purchasing cigarettes,
increased fines for selling tobacco to minors, restricted vending
machine locations and made health warnings on tobacco
packaging more effective.
A majority of Canadians believe the action plan is the right
approach to address tobacco smuggling. Their belief is
well-founded. Our integrated approach is definitely working.
By seriously reducing profit margins it is eradicating both the
supply of and demand for contraband tobacco products. It has
particularly caused serious disruption to the operation of
organized smuggling networks. It has substantially restored the
domestic tax paid market for tobacco products.
However, I want the House to know that this initial success
does not provide unconditional support for a tax increase that
will bring back previous levels. The fact is some amount of
tobacco smuggling continues in central and eastern Canada.
Moreover the RCMP reports that smugglers have developed new
supply and distribution lines to the western provinces where
governments have not reduced tobacco taxes.
(1825)
I too would like to see tobacco taxes increased but first we
must win the battle against smuggling. To that end, tax measures
support enforcement efforts and enforcement efforts take time
to achieve maximum effectiveness. That is why this government
remains committed to strong action to address smuggling on a
comprehensive national basis, strong action which includes
maintaining federal tobacco taxes at current levels.
Motion No. 288 also calls for the redirection of tax revenues
to specifically fund health care costs. The government is not in
favour of such action. All members will know that tobacco tax
revenues are an important part of government tax collections. In
keeping with our general practice of avoiding earmarked taxes,
these revenues are used to fund programs and services across
many areas of responsibility. This ensures that the government's
flexibility to respond to changing needs and conditions is not
constrained. It also protects over or underfunding of the selected
area.
I should note however that the use of proceeds from the health
promotion surtax is an exception to this general rule. In
particular this targeted approach was undertaken on the basis of
the measure's temporary nature and specific intent to ensure that
manufacturers do not derive any benefit from the tobacco tax
reductions.
I share the concerns of all members with respect to low
tobacco taxes. I know our government has no interest or intent in
encouraging tobacco use. Nevertheless, this is not the appropri-
7018
ate time to reintroduce higher tobacco taxes, nor should tobacco
taxes be directed solely to health care. Hence, I urge this House
to dismiss Motion No. 288.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are two minutes
left.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in two minutes I will have to pick something out of my
10 minute speech. I want to thank my colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for bringing this topic back to the
House for debate.
I want to reiterate what one of my colleagues said previously
in relation to the fact that the main issue to address is that we are
dancing to someone else's tune. This is the Government of
Canada. We make the laws here and because we have some
difficulty in enforcing those laws it seems the best way to
resolve that issue is to change the laws instead of going out and
enforcing the issue.
I would also like to comment on the cost. We all know that if
you cannot afford to participate or you cannot afford to buy
something, then you do not. That is what the majority of people
do. However, what we have done here is we have actually
enabled more people to buy and consume cigarettes. It does not
matter whether they are young, old or middle aged, the
consumption of cigarettes will indeed go up.
We may not feel that effect today from the point of view of
how it relates or translates into other services, but we certainly
will reap its benefits shall we say from the point of view of
taxing our health care services in the future. Here we are
debating our social programs and their survival because of our
debt and we are implementing an opportunity for people to go
out and abuse their health which we will have to address at some
time in the future.
(1830 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7018
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport was a result of
a proposal I sent to the minister on October 7.
In that proposal I pointed out that Bill C-22 does not protect
Canadians as the minister would have everyone believe. What it
does do is strip all Canadians of the right of due process by
pronouncing a group of Canadians guilty until proven innocent
and then proceeds to remove their right to prove their own
innocence.
In his response to my question the minister suggests I want
this to go to court to protect my friends. I point out to the
minister as I did in my proposal to him that of the group of
companies that make up the Pearson Development Corporation
only 18.5 per cent have close known ties to the former Tory
government.
In actual fact there are far more Liberals than Tories involved
in the deal and I have never heard him accuse me of being in this
to help the Liberals.
My interest in this matter goes far beyond the subject of the
Pearson contract. It goes to a matter of basic justice. If the
government can cancel any contract without regard for due
process, no one is safe.
The Pearson Development Corporation had a contract with
the government. The minister quotes me as stating that I see
nothing wrong with the deal. Frankly, I have not found anything
wrong. If there is something wrong with the deal, I do not know
what it is.
Interestingly enough, according to a secret government
document supplied to Robert Nixon, the government also thinks
that it is a good deal. Quoting from that secret document, airline
rents are in line with other airports undertaking major capital
investments. Crown return is considerably better than the crown
construction option. The Pearson Development Corporation
return on investment is endorsed as a reasonable rate of return
by both the Department of Finance and an independent financial
consultant.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister stated on October
17 that the government was waiting to get the national airport's
program all set up so that it could go ahead and start spending
the $740 million that the Pearson investors were going to spend.
Maybe he should consult with the Minister of Finance to find
out where their cash strapped government is going to get another
three-quarters of a billion dollars. He should also read his own
government's secret document that says that this is not a good
idea.
If the government chooses to cancel it, that is its prerogative.
However, when a contract is cancelled there are rules to govern
this. The government chose to ignore those rules.
To put this in an analogy of a ball game, imagine a game, top
of the ninth. Canadian taxpayers are ahead four-nothing against
the government. The government says it is pulling the ump and
putting in a person of its own. It extends the game until it
7019
announces it is over, changes the rules so it can get ahead and
then announces that the game is finished.
The Minister of Transport has tried this group of Canadian
investors on the basis of accusation alone. He has been the
judge, jury and financial executioner. If there is any evidence of
illegal activity then and only then are the contractors the ones
who have broken the rules.
So far the government has not brought forth any such
evidence. A judicial inquiry would help clear the air and assure
that justice is done. That was my proposal to the minister.
My question was will the minister agree that the Pearson
problem is not going to go away and that the proposal I sent him
is the only fair and logical way to bring this matter to a just
conclusion. The minister did not answer that question.
Therefore I ask it again and I await a response.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very surprised but not
unhappy that the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke keeps
giving us the opportunity to explain how far from reality the
member's proposals are.
Let us talk about his October 7 letter to the Minister of
Transport. In his opening paragraph, he states that all Canadians
will be stripped of their rights to due process by this statute.
The Ministers of Transport and Justice have been scrupulous
in ensuring that this legislation is specific to one particular deal,
the Pearson international deal.
It has only been one year since the people of the Toronto
region expressed their opinion on this deal quite vocally and
ultimately quite democratically. They do not want to be tied to
this deal. I believe they know very well that their rights are
being protected by the government.
While we are truly looking to limit access to the courts by the
developers, in case the member has not noticed the consortium
is now in court. Even the majority in the other place agreed that
members of the consortium could go to court after passage of
Bill C-22 if they refused to believe we have the constitutional
right to take back Pearson airport in the public interest of
Canadians.
I cannot let the hon. member get away with saying they are not
asking for any money in their present court case. They are
asking for third party indemnity. That means they want to be
covered for a lot of money. It is that simple.
The Minister of Transport has most ably presented the costs
that the members of the consortium want by way of
compensation. They have already submitted claims for lost
profits for over $400 million. Those were the claims they
submitted when we only asked them to provide their actual
expenses. I cannot wait to see what they submit when they want
to present their final bills.
I am absolutely amazed that the Reform Party member
continues to persist in making this his issue when he knows that
the people of Canada support the government on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)