Debates of Oct. 20th, 1994

Old Age Security Act

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

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.

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.

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.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

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.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested a number of times in her

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.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

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.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

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.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

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?

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

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.

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

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.

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?

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

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

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.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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.

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.

National Infertility Awareness Week

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

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

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.

Job Creation

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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.

National Science And Technology Week

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

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.

Municipal Elections

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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.

National Dental Hygiene Week

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

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.

National Homemaker/Home Support Worker Week

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

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.

National Defence

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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?

Tobacco

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

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.

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.

Port Of Saint John

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

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.

Hazel McCallion

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

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

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.

Canadian Foster Family Week

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

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.