Debates of Oct. 20th, 1994

Old Age Security Act

[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.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

"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."

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

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?

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

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.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

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

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!

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

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.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

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.

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.

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.

Another amendment would enable the Department of Human Resources Development to give better service to disabled Canadians trying to re-enter the workforce.

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.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

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.

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.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

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.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

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.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

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.

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.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

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.

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.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

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.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

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 wordinvestment' 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.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

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.

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.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I believe the finance minister should write a comic book. He likes to give answers quite often in a comedic fashion.

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

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.

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.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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

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.

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.