Darrel Stinson

[Fur Industry, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, animal rights activists seem to be convincing our trading partners in Europe to ban furs imported from countries which use leg hold traps. In Canada such a ban apparently would affect about 100,000 jobs, including 80,000 trappers of whom about half are native people.

I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade whether it is true that our only strategy in the situation is to seek delays beyond the current proposed deadline of January 1, 1996.

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the days have long since past when individual Canadians had to rely only on themselves, their families and their community for support during times of either unemployment or old age. Instead, the federal government has created the complicated system of tax funded programs of support, often called our social safety net. Like any other net it is full of holes, some of which are intentional but some of which merely represent aspects of serving the public which were not anticipated when the original legislation was drawn.

Bill C-54 represents the most recent efforts of the Government of Canada to mend some of those unintentional holes in our national safety net. It pertains to several major pieces of legislation, including the Old Age Security Act, the Canadian pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The fact that it covers such a large amount of earlier legislation makes one suspect Bill C-54 will be complicated. In that regard the suspicion is correct. Several members of Parliament have spent many hours studying and digesting what the government has proposed here.

According to the legislative summary provided by the economics division of the Library of Parliament research, the government intended Bill C-54 to achieve the following goals: to improve service to clients of these major income support measures; to better co-ordinate programs, administration and the actual delivery of service; to eliminate some inconsistencies between old age security and the Canada pension plan programs;

to reduce administrative costs, and to save some trees and some time by reducing duplication and paper burden, both for the departments and their clients; and finally, to help members of Parliament to better serve our constituents.

These changes will have wide ranging impact since they are expected to benefit some 1.4 million seniors and save the taxpayer about $10 million annually. Of course, nearly all Canadians, including those in the Reform Party of Canada, would approve of these goals. We all want more efficient government, fewer program duplications and reduced federal expenses. As one might expect, however, it is how the government proposes to undertake these much desired improvements that has led some of us to propose amendments to Bill C-54.

The first section of Bill C-54 deals in clauses 1 through 24 with the Old Age Security Act. I must report to this House that my constituency office frequently receives complaints from seniors who are caught up in the red tape of the Old Age Security Act sections.

People receiving the spouses allowance, SPA, and the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, are required to reapply every single year preventing any payments from being made when the new fiscal year begins each April 1 until those applications have been received and approved. Single handedly that requirement imposes real hardship on the very Canadians this legislation was aimed at helping, namely low income seniors whose cheques are often delayed, for example if some bureaucrat decides that information on the application must be verified.

The simple fact is that the income of these least well off seniors does not change much from year to year. Therefore it seems to me to make far more sense to require only that seniors must report changes to their yearly income. No report received means there is no change.

On behalf of those seniors I personally congratulate the government for eliminating the very irritating and generally unnecessary piece of red tape. However, the question is not that simple.

A House committee has been at work on Bill C-54. The result of the committee's work is a series of proposed amendments which this place has been treating in groups for the purpose of organizing the debate.

Clause 23 of that first section of Bill C-54 is the subject of amendments, or Motions Nos. 5 and 6 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois as well as Motion No. 7 put forward by the Reform Party of Canada.

Clause 23 deals with overpayments that people may have received. Our position regarding Motion No. 5 is that when Canadians receive payment to which they are not entitled, they should pay the amount back except in those circumstances such as hardship or death, which already appear on page 10 of the bill.

Regarding Bloc Motion No. 6, we oppose it because we believe that department officials should stand behind their advice and be accountable regarding our tax dollars. This unaccountability by the bureaucrats and in some regards the politicians has gone on far too long.

Regarding Motion No. 7, the Reform Party's concern primarily relates to keeping the minister accountable to Parliament. This has been overlooked for years. It is time that the minister started to accept some of that accountability.

Motion No. 7 asks the minister to report annually to this House regarding overpayments in either Canada pension plan or old age security, providing details of their cost to taxpayers. A parliamentary committee would then study this report and make its recommendations regarding what the minister could or could not remit the following year.

Motion No. 7 has the great advantage of keeping the department and its minister accountable to the Canadian people through members of Parliament who are the people's elected representatives. What I am saying here is opposite to that which the member on the other side said a few minutes ago. We in the Reform Party say maybe it is time that MPs started to buckle down and do some work on their own to help the minister out and not just to pass it off.

Very often even in my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap I hear complaints from voters that civil servants and bureaucrats can do whatever they want with no accountability to the people who pay their salaries. It is an ongoing complaint and not only in my constituency. I am sure hon. members on the other side have had the same thing happen. They must hear it at the parties they go to or from the friends they associate with. It is an ongoing concern in Canada that has to be addressed.

We must take every responsible opportunity to correct this situation, where both bureaucrats and the courts run this country instead of having a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Too often we have government of the Ottawa mandarins for their own purpose, or governments of the lawyers and the judges, all too often to protect the rights of the criminals rather than to defend the interests of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens.

Until we can bring accountability back into this House we will always have this complaint from our constituents. It is unnecessary. It is something we must address and I believe Motion No. 7 is the first step in a long process.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure what the hon. member has to say is extremely important, but I do not see a quorum in the House.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when Europeans first came to Canada everyone had such a short life expectancy and society as a whole was so poor that people basically worked hard from childhood until they died. Some third world nations are still like that, but the industrialized world has made enough advances in public health and medicine that diseases which used to claim huge numbers of people have been either controlled or eliminated in developed countries.

We generally expect to live long and healthy lives. For example, as of 1992 the Canadian life expectancy for women was 81.2 years while some say that we overworked men nevertheless manage to survive for an expected span of 74.9 years.

In addition to improved health, there are other major achievements of developed countries. We generate sufficient wealth so that both our children and our seniors no longer need to be involved in the direct production of wealth. We provide free public education for our young people at least to the age of 16.

We pride ourselves on the fact that child labour is a thing of the past in our modern industrialized world.

At the other end of life, industrialized nations also provide a special time when the wealth of society allows the elderly to be free from the need to produce more wealth. For Canadians age 65 and older, advances in medicine and improved nutrition have also made it possible for them to enjoy improved health and independence.

I had the opportunity last week to drop in at the beautiful lakeside community of Sorrento in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap. The 220 members of their old age pensioners branch had raised enough money with no government grants of any kind to build a 30 by 60 foot addition to their original meeting place so that they could have room to enjoy such things as carpet bowling, snooker and darts. They also did the majority of the physical work themselves, erecting the walls and rafters.

Some of these seniors I am speaking of are in their 80s. I was impressed not only with their energy but the enthusiasm they showed and the sincere concern they had for Canada. The seniors told me they are also concerned about whether Canada can continue to provide pensions on which they all depend because of excessive government spending, such as the gold plated MP pension plans.

Of course some of these seniors have been thrifty and fortunate enough to own their own homes which keeps their monthly expenses down. Some seniors receive cheques from company pension plans or interest payments from their life savings, but many live on nationally funded pensions.

Low income seniors, especially elderly widows, tell me they have great worries about adequate housing, health care, home care after hospitalization, and public transportation. Nevertheless overall this is a generation of people who lived through the great depression. They know how to make do as they say, meaning that they can get by on very little without complaining.

For example, the monthly maximum payment this quarter for single seniors receiving old age security and the government's income supplement is $850 a month. For married seniors both of whom are over age 65, the monthly maximum payment this quarter from the federal pension and income supplement combined is $689 a month each. In other words, senior couples are living on less than $1,400 per month or $16,542 per year from which they must also pay taxes.

Nationally, StatsCan set the low income cut off at a point where more than 54.7 per cent of income is required to pay for food, shelter and clothing. In rural areas, for 1993 the low income cut off for families of two was $14,238. For small towns, the level was $16,329. Therefore it is only in rural parts of Canada that seniors living on OAS and GIS escape poverty. The majority of Canadians live in cities. The low income cut off for a family of two shoots up to $20,603 in cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Remember, married seniors get $4,000 less than that.

I want to contrast the pensions of those average Canadian seniors with members of Parliament, who have been in the remarkable position of being able to pass the very law that determines how much pension they will receive. How would reasonable MPs decide on their pensions? Would they look at what is done in other countries? For example, in the United Kingdom parliamentarians contribute 6 per cent of their salaries and are eligible for pension after 55 when age plus years of service equal 80. The United States congressmen contribute 1.3 per cent and can qualify at age 50 with 20 years service. Obviously Canadian MPs ignored those standards, both for the present pensions and their so-called reforms.

Bill C-85 at long last proposes to reform MPs' pensions so that they cannot qualify until age 55. It also ends double dipping. For both these improvements I congratulate the government. However, these were merely two small baby steps toward badly needed major strides that should have been performed in reforming MPs' pensions in this country.

Our goal should be nothing other than a pension plan similar to those allowed to everyday Canadian seniors. For them the Income Tax Act continues to set a 6 per cent limit on pension contributions. However, under Bill C-85 MPs' pension contributions will only drop from the present 11 per cent to 9 per cent. It is still 50 per cent higher than allowed for the private sector and it is still costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Another point I wish to raise concerns the opting out possibility. The entire pension plan should be significantly reformed so that no MP in good conscience would see any need to opt out. Without those complete down to earth reforms to the MPs' pension plan, every newly elected member of Parliament must have the option to turn down the pension plan, which through Bill C-85 has merely gone from being solid gold to being gold-plated. In my opinion, even after passage of Bill C-85 MPs' pensions will remain a national disgrace.

When the Liberals were elected the Canadian people accepted them as they would at a wedding. They looked at them as either the bride or the groom. They gave them the ring to run this country. Unfortunately, since then, through acts such as this piddling around with the MPs' pension plan, I am afraid the Liberal government has given the Canadian public the finger.

We do not have to delve too deeply to see what it is costing the Canadian public today to keep what these MPs seem to say is

their right. Does any member of Parliament think that the only reason he came to this place was in order to get a pension and his only way of being paid back is through that pension? I would like to know what their commitment to Canada is. I find it hard to accept that there is anyone in this House who would use that.

I hear nothing from the other side with regard to this debate. I have yet to hear anyone on the other side stand up to address this. I find this strange. Are they afraid the Canadian public would not listen to what they say, or if it did listen it would want to turf them out? I think it is probably the latter. Hopefully I am wrong. I would sincerely like to see a member from the other side rise and speak to this issue. The Canadian public would also like to hear them speak to this issue. We have had only smoke and mirrors from the other side with respect to this. Perhaps it is time they clear the smoke away and tell us exactly what they have done to reform the MPs' pension plan and what the cost will now be to the Canadian taxpayers, who perceive the MPs as living off them like parasites.

It is sad to say that in this country we have fallen that badly. The obligation should be for someone from the government side to stand up and support their own pension scheme. If they would go out and talk to seniors and see how much they have contributed to the country, with no guarantees, they would be really surprised. Maybe we should be a little ashamed of what we have allowed to happen in this country.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague who just spoke. That was well said. I hope hon. members on the other side were listening.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On April 26, 1994 I submitted Question No. 40 on the Order Paper regarding government grants to businesses. I asked for an answer within 45 days.

I will ask again. When will the government please give me an answer to this question?

[Forestry And Mining Industries, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week has been declared both national forestry week and national mining week. Last year these two industries jointly provided 421,000 direct Canadian jobs. For 1993, forestry and mining together accounted for $10 billion more to Canada's balance of trade, meaning exports minus imports, than the combined production of energy, automotive vehicles and parts, agriculture and fishing.

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the AGM of the B.C. Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association. Far from being a sunset industry, these people represent world leading companies, which are constantly inventing better ways to use our natural resources with improved environmental safeguards and full cooperation with all who depend on our beautiful but limited land base.

On behalf of all Canadians, I want to thank the forest and mining industries for their continued contribution to making Canada one of the most prosperous nations on earth.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Has appointed.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had a question on the Order Paper for 348 days now and I am starting to wonder if I will have to wait-

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

A Liberal said no.