Debates of Oct. 20th, 1994

Old Age Security Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. With the greatest respect to all my colleagues on both sides of the House, please direct all your interventions through the Chair so that we might

continue to have the usual customary respectful debate we are accustomed to in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, public servants who administer these programs are required to collect personal information from millions of Canadians in order to manage these programs. It would be a tremendous administrative obstacle if clients refused to give officials of the Department of Human Resources Development personal information because they feared this information would not be adequately protected. Confidentiality provisions were made as restrictive as they are to protect Canadians from unwelcome intrusions.

However, Canadians are also concerned about criminals who have entered Canada and may be living in their midst. While Canadians value their privacy they also want justice.

Finally, there remains another amendment that I would like to explain to all members of the House. It is the amendment to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, which results from another amendment that has been proposed by the Solicitor General.

This amendment would allow the Department of Human Resources Development to provide information on OAS and CPP benefits now paid to prison inmates. This must surely be of interest to Reform Party members.

The goal is to deduct housing and feeding costs from these inmates' income. The Solicitor General could then receive from the Department of Human Resources Development accurate information on inmates' income so he can make reasonable deductions.

Is it right that inmates are housed and fed for free and that they can accumulate income from federal benefits which are, of course, eventually paid for by the government and by Canadian taxpayers? I do not think so. Pensioners who are not criminals must pay their own housing and other costs. To ensure a minimum level of fairness and responsibility, the same principle should apply to prison inmates, especially if they also receive federal benefits.

In conclusion, I hope that my explanations have helped to establish the validity of some of the amendments in this bill and that all members now have the information they need to explain in turn these amendments to their constituents.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is of course in favour of the bill and is telling us now that he supports it mainly for the sake of social justice. I wonder, Mr. Speaker.

The confidential information that he praised and which would be made available to the RCMP would just be a tool to expose some cheaters of unemployment insurance or in other areas.

The bill as presented does not contain enough measures to limit it to that. Knowing the way RCMP officers work, we noticed in past years that they used these famous lists to do their work, although this information was not available. We need only recall the Parti Quebecois's membership list. The RCMP tried to obtain a copy and then tried to see if members on that list were breaking certain laws.

So I ask the hon. member the following question: Does this bill in its present form guarantee us that the information which will be made available to the RCMP will be used only by that force and not for other unintended purposes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that a long time has passed since the unfortunate events of the 1970s; however, I can assure him that, under the terms of the law as proposed, we will ensure the confidentiality of information on Canadians. Nevertheless, we should still take into account the presence of some war criminals, or at least consider certain crimes against humanity that they committed. Of course, I referred to the period from 1939 to 1945, but we must still understand that others who took part in wars which are still going on, be it in Yugoslavia or Somalia or elsewhere in the world, committed crimes which are as atrocious as those committed from 1939 to 1945 for which people were charged.

Unfortunately, such people try to enter Canada and settle among us, and I believe that it is the duty of the RCMP, the Government of Canada and all hon. members here in this House to denounce the presence of any war criminals in this country.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a few years away from becoming a senior. The hon. member is many more years away from becoming a senior; it is way out there in front of him as he points out.

Based on the hon. member's age and notwithstanding the contributions he is making to the Canada pension plan now, all of us know there is an unfunded liability there that we are not currently accounting for that we are all paying. Knowing that, does he believe there will be sufficient funds in the account? Does he believe that future generations will be able to make the size of premium payments required for this hon. member to receive his CPP when he reaches the age of 65, whether or not he elects to get it at an earlier age? If he does not believe that, what does he think this government should do about it?

The other issue I would like to touch upon is a little closer to my heart. There is another fund that we look after in our social programs. We in the Reform Party, as do government members-they have said it often enough-care about the truly needy. We care about providing services, funding and facilities for those people who really and truly need it. The problem in our government today however is that we have not spent enough time and effort to establish where that line is, or the grey area where it is, so that we can start helping those people.

OAS is an unfunded program currently which nobody since 1971 has paid into. I would like the hon. member, based on his youthful experience, to say whether he believes that 25 years from now or 35 years from now, whenever he reaches the age of 65, he should receive $386 per month as his reward for becoming 65. If he does not need it, should he receive that money? If his income is below a household average or a certain minimum income level, then I believe we all should get it should we be so unfortunate, the two of us, that when we are 65 we need that help.

These two questions are meant to be serious questions. I am not playing games here. These are two issues that play hard on my mind. I am grappling with them and I want to come up with some solutions.

Would this member tell me whether there will be money there for CPP, and does he feel an entitlement to his OAS payments when he reaches 65?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member is raising a very pertinent question on the state of finances in Canada. We know we have a high deficit. We are facing problems, but we are also facing challenges.

One has to keep in mind that the whole idea of the projet de loi is to try to find solutions, to bring Canadians back into the workforce, putting them back to work. Much has to be done in terms of training and retraining. Much has to be done in terms of trying to free up capital for small businesses.

Just the other day there was a report that was brought to the attention of hon. members as a result of which we are going to be asking banks to put up some money to try to encourage small businesses and free enterprise and to go on to try to create jobs throughout Canada. Much can be done with small employers.

Of course the Canada today is not that of the year of my birth, 1962. Things have changed. Things will keep on changing. However, as long as we look into other venues in trying to encourage investment, foreign investment, trying to free up capital for small companies and corporations, I am sure that we will surmount these obstacles and that there will be money available for all Canadians in the years to come.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I had overestimated the member's age. Now that I know his age I would like to ask him again whether he feels there will be sufficient moneys in CPP. The CPP question he did answer. He feels there will be. On the OAS, the second question I asked, does he feel an entitlement to receive whatever the monthly payment may be in the future just because he reaches age 65 should he be above the minimum wage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a Liberal and as a Canadian as well I should add that I believe in the concept of universality in different programs that are given to all Canadians. That is one of the hallmarks of this federation, that we recognize the fact that all Canadians should be treated equally.

However, trying to answer a hypothetical question as posed by the Reform Party would be like asking one of my predecessors elected in 1962 whether he foresees the election of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois 32 years down the road. It is very difficult to make those kinds of assumptions that moneys will not be there.

The economy is evolving and changes are taking place. Of course, our government is taking charge of our finances. The Minister of Finance is doing a commendable job. We have to keep in mind that also our Minister of Human Resources Development wants to consult Canadians. That is one of the reasons why we are out there asking Canadians to put something into the system.

We want to consult them and I am sure we are going to get all kinds of proposals and solutions outside this Parliament which we do not regrettably receive from the opposition benches.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and address this bill, but I also wish to address the larger debate that is going on across the country and really the one that has been going on this morning and that is with respect to the social program review that is currently under way.

To have a good understanding of the social program review I think it is very important that we go back and look at the genesis of this idea and the genesis of the debate. Probably the first thing we should do is point out that during the last election campaign the Liberals across the way did not even mention social program reform as an issue. It was as though it did not exist.

There was an interesting article in the Ottawa Citizen from October 14:

During the election, then Prime Minister Kim Campbell stepped on a land mine by declaring a campaign was the "worst possible time" to discuss social policy reform. Jean Chrétien criticized her heavily and tiptoed around the same land mine with the following assurance: "I say that the programs are there and they will remain the same-".

That was a year ago. That is the type of double talk that the Prime Minister used to accuse the Conservatives of using.

The article goes on, quoting the Prime Minister:

"The plan of the party is clear. The social safety net that we have in Canada will remain."

The Liberal's election bible, the red book, made no reference to a major review of social programs or even whether one might be necessary.

I would like to contrast that with how the Reform Party addressed this issue which was to address it head on, recognizing that fiscal problems in this country are directly linked to social policy because social programs eat up almost $80 billion a year and we cannot tackle fiscal problems without making some cuts in social programs.

However, I point out that the approach we took was to start cutting at the top first before we got to social programs. We said that Canadians demand leadership by example. They want to see cuts to the cost of Parliament. They want to see MPs' pensions done away with in the current form. They are concerned with overlap between not only federal and provincial government but also between different departments within the federal government. They want to see subsidies to business and special interest groups trimmed. We would then take a look at social programs in conjunction with the people of Canada.

What we found out in the days and months leading up to the election was that people did believe that there had to be cuts made there in order to achieve a balanced budget which even now the finance minister is beginning to recognize in this country. Hopefully it is not too late.

What we said is that people place a very high priority on maintaining spending for health care in this country and we agreed. We said that health care spending should be maintained. However, we should respect the authority of the provinces and their jurisdiction under the Constitution to have control over health care.

The other thing that people told us was very important to them was maintaining funding for post-secondary education. We proposed various ideas to make that even more effective but maintain the funding.

Some of the other areas where people felt there could be some cuts and changes made were unemployment insurance; a proposal to make unemployment insurance a true insurance program based on the idea that employers and employees who fund the program, who put the money in, should have control over it. In other words, we were proposing to empower individuals to have control over their own lives and create the type of insurance system that would be truly responsive to their needs. They would set the eligibility requirements, the premiums and the benefits. That I will refer to in a little more detail further down the road.

Let us fast forward now to the throne speech of January of 1994, to the budget and to the announcement that there would be a social program review. I think it was January 31 if memory serves. The hon. member from across the way is nodding his head.

On that day it was announced that there would be a social program review and that there would be a final report to the House with recommendations and, I believe, legislation this fall. That has now gone way off track but we will get into that in a moment.

Let us go back to what the budget speech and budget documents were saying about the social program review. On the issue of social security reform, I quote from one of the documents: "The standing committee will seek the views of Canadians on issues and objectives until April. The minister will then table a federal action plan and the standing committee will conduct public hearings on it until September and report in October. As well, federal-provincial territorial activities will take place during this period. The government will table reform legislation in the fall".

It also addressed how it would tackle some of the other social policy areas that are not actually in the social security review right now, things like health care, old age security and Canada pension plan.

For some reason these were not included in a package together and I find that odd because they are inextricably linked and I think we will see if we look at the current green paper that there are contradictions perhaps or at least we are putting the cart before the horse in some cases. For instance, in the green paper there is a reference to unemployed people using RRSPs so that they can get themselves through a period of unemployment.

On the other hand we have not even addressed the issue of Canada's old age security and Canada pension plan yet and what is going to happen with that. Meanwhile the government is floating trial balloons on RRSP taxation and things like that. That is well ahead of any paper that is coming down on the future Canada pension plan and old age security.

Right from the get go the government made a grave error when it did not look at these different areas together.

The idea of the social program reform was to find out what kind of ideas there were out there so we could do two things, make social programs more efficient and save some money.

The government denied that was really the case initially. It wanted to leave us with the impression that this was really an effort to make things more efficient and help people get off unemployment and that kind of thing. Running through this was a growing awareness, certainly from the finance minister if not from the rest of the cabinet, that cuts were going to have to come

in the next federal budget and that we could not go on spending as much money as we have been spending in this country.

Once the social program review was launched there were delays. There were problems right off the bat. There were patronage appointments made to the task force, people being paid big per diems. More delays came along. The thing floundered.

People really wanted to see the social program review succeed. Canadians have been talking about the need for social program review for 10, 12, 15 years and they want this government to succeed. They want it to do well because they know that their interests are at stake. They grew concerned and I would argue that those concerns continue to grow today.

Not only was this program review put on hold continually much to the chagrin of Canadians, but on the eve of the release of the long awaited green paper there was a revelation in the Toronto Star that the social program reform was going to include big cuts, $7.5 billion worth, even though the government had given Canadians the impression that they would be consulted in this before any types of cuts were actually considered.

On the other hand, I am certain there was a printing mistake. When the green paper was released there were no figures at all in it. In other words, Canadians were being asked to choose among all these different programs without knowing how much they would cost and what the costs of the various alternatives were. Obviously that was a mistake, a printing mistake I am certain, because no government would ever put forward a list of proposals without having something so critical in it as the cost of the actual programs.

Every day Canadians make decisions on all kinds of issues. Chief among them I can guarantee is how much they cost, because they know they have to live within their means. Somehow this escapes the government.

Also missing from the various options were many of the options put before the government during the period that led up to the actual presentation of the document in the House. I sat in on some of the HRD meetings and heard some of the presentations that were given. I remember sitting in a committee meeting suggesting that the studies and inquiries from past royal commissions should become part of the official body of information that the government refers to when it is considering the options.

I mentioned specifically the Forget commission report. It talked for instance about unemployment insurance and returning it to the employers and the employees, the people who fund it. That was rejected by the committee because the Liberal majority voted against it for reasons that escape me. There were members who spoke in favour of it. When the whip was cracked they all voted against the proposal. I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to review the record.

Not all of the various options are in the paper. That is unfortunate because Canadians should have a chance to look at some of the other options that were put before the committee.

Initially this document was put forward as an action plan. That was the wording of the motion. It said-I think on January 31-that the government would be tabling an action plan in the days and weeks to come. Somehow over the course of the last several months the action plan became watered down and diluted to the point where it became a discussion paper.

In other words the minister who has the power to call to heel armies of bureaucrats and all kinds of minions to gather all the wisdom in the country about social policy reform, after all that time, money and the thousands of hours that were spent on it, brought forward a little green pamphlet with scarcely any action at all or any call for action, but merely a few of the options of the many that were discussed. That was a real shame.

We are now in a situation in which other groups around the country have come forward and said: "We have some ideas that the government for some reason did not want to consider".

I point to the Kierans-Robson report from the C.D. Howe Institute in which not only did they come out with options, but they came out with costs. They said: "We will tell you how much money we are going to cut from some of these areas".

These are not what I am suggesting, but they should be in the debate. On the topic of unemployment insurance they suggest that unemployment insurance should be converted into true insurance; there should be a proposal to eliminate regional differences in qualifying periods and benefits and we should eliminate all regional and non-insurance components. The savings from that would be $5.5 billion. They were not ashamed to suggest there would be some savings there.

Under the Canada assistance plan they suggested that we eliminate and divert $2.5 billion to a new child tax credit to low income households. The total savings on that would be $4.9 billion.

They talked about health care, which is something the government has been reluctant to discuss, or at least they are having trouble getting the provinces to come to the table. At this very moment the Prime Minister is delivering a speech to an empty assembly of people called for the health care forum. Not only were the health care ministers from across the country invited and did not show up, but the premiers were invited by the Prime Minister himself. They refused to come for two reasons: first, they know that under the Constitution this is their jurisdiction; second, they resent that although they are the senior partners in this arrangement and they pay the lion's share of the cost for health care-almost double what the federal government pays-the federal government is attempting to set the agenda. It has made a grave error in this. There are other areas including social program reform, GST reform and interprovincial trade barriers where it has made the same errors.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

They would not even let them co-chair the proceedings.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

The government would not even let them co-chair the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend points out.

Suffice it to say there are many problems with the green paper. It has been roundly criticized by the media, by the provinces, and by the many special interest groups that were funded by the government to come and appear before them but by Canadians themselves.

Reform's zero-three program really led the way. Lately we have had proposals from Tom Courchene who actually appeared before the committee. The hon. member from Winnipeg across the way was there when he appeared. He made an excellent presentation. I guess he did not find any of his proposals in the green paper so he felt it was necessary to bring out his own. It is now in the arena of public debate. Hopefully the government will see fit to include it in its area of debate as well and will consider some of Mr. Courchene's ideas.

The government has another problem. We are rapidly approaching the end of 1994. It has delayed again the time when it will call for the reporting deadline on this issue to February 6, 1995. We have moved from getting this into legislation this fall. Possibly when we consider the time it takes to draft legislation and for it to pass through various readings in the House and committee, it is quite conceivable that it will be well into 1996 before it actually becomes legislation, if that is what the government decides to do.

It will probably be a year, perhaps a year and a half, before the next election if the government holds an election within four years. That concerns me. It is a well known fact that governments very often fail at the last moment, at the critical point, when they are faced with going before the electorate, particularly when they are talking about making deep cuts to something that Canadians value like social programs.

I am concerned about that. This issue is inextricably intertwined with the whole issue of fiscal responsibility and the huge problems we face because of overspending by this Liberal government and the Conservative governments that went before.

We have a deficit of $40 billion. We have a debt approaching $535 billion. Soon international lenders are going to get fed up. They are going to say that they have had enough and want to find a place where their investment will be safe.

I am concerned the government across the way has not realized that. It does not understand the urgency. While the finance minister may realize it, I think the Prime Minister has failed to grasp it, as has the human resources development minister.

I urge the government to come to grips with the seriousness of the situation, to take another look at its social program reform and to move ahead with serious cuts in the very near future for the sake of all Canadians.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I paid attention to the hon. member's speech.

I thought we were debating the redesign of the ISP. I want to ask the hon. member if he has any opinions on some concrete examples that would improve services for seniors because this is what the bill is about.

For example, it will only take half a day to process a simple OAS application which now takes around seven days to do. Processing time for an application for Canada pension plan benefits will drop from 13 days to one day. Telephone service will be improved so that 97 per cent of all telephone calls will get answered. Today only about 50 per cent get answered. Seniors will be able to make changes to information such as change of address over the telephone using a touch tone system. For clients who prefer personal service or who do not have a touch tone phone, staff will be available to answer their questions quickly.

These are real, positive changes that have an impact on the lives of seniors on an every day basis. The hon. member should be addressing issues that we deal with in this bill. However he has taken the opportunity to expand and talk about the social security review. The reality is that the government has been the first one in a long time that has had the courage to face up to some very difficult challenges and choices we have to make as a nation.

Thirteen per cent of the people in Canada are unemployed for a year or longer. Long term unemployment has increased three times since 1976. When 40 per cent of these people are faced with structural unemployment and 30 per cent of Canadians have problems with literacy and numeracy skills, one has to admit we have to move toward building a better and more efficient social security system that; first, helps Canadians get jobs and keep jobs; second, would help the most vulnerable and; third, is sustainable.

Another flaw in the speech delivered by the hon. member deals with the red book. I do not expect the hon. member to read the red book, among other books which he has not read. If he was to read the red book very carefully he will find these references. I want to cite them to the hon. member because I know he will be engaged in the social security debate. I am sure he does not want to give misinformation to Canadians.

If the hon. member would read page 16 he will find the red book commitment:

A Liberal government will adopt a series of measures to put Canadians back to work and foster economic growth.

Page 21:

It is our goal to help people on social assistance who are able to work, to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of Canada.

Page 22:

A Liberal government will work with all the provinces to use established funding mechanisms such as CAP in more innovative ways in order to move from passive to active support of people in need.

Other pages deal with issues we are dealing with in the social security review. It seems to me that the hon. member must take the time to read the red book, to read the green book, and in a very honest way also tell Canadians where the Reform Party is going to cut $15 billion.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his series of questions. He has touched on a number of issues and on this bill in particular. I commend the government if it is trying to improve services. Obviously we have to do that.

However, as the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out it is kind of like polishing the chrome when the transmission is going. The big issue before the country today is social program reform. It is one of the huge issues. Let us not debate whether answering the phone sooner is a good thing. Of course it is. We all know that answering the phone and providing faster service for seniors is important. We understand that.

By pulling out vague references to discussion about social program reform or about minor aspects of social program reform, it does not follow that the government made any kind of commitment in the red book to deal with this problem in a serious way.

The government downplayed the whole issue during the election campaign. It downplayed the seriousness of the debt situation to the point where a year after it came into power it is just now beginning to realize how seriously we are in debt in this country. Not because it wants to but because international investors have told them: "Get your act together or we are going to start to move our money out of the country". It is that simple. It is not because it somehow saw this ahead of time and put together a big task force and went to Canadians.

With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, if he had referred to our zero and three plan, of which we distributed millions of copies during the election campaign, he would know we talked about our changes to social program reform. They are on the public record. In fact this spring we gave the finance minister a list of $20 billion in proposed cuts for the government to use in its efforts to get the deficit and debt under control. I offer that to the parliamentary secretary for him to look at.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, which relates more to the human aspect of this bill.

When reading the amendment we proposed, one realizes that the bill really does little to protect those it covers against possible undue solicitation. I refer, for example, to the fact that the person giving unauthorized sources access to a beneficiary's personal information, for commercial purposes, telemarketing or whatever, would not be liable to prosecution under the Criminal Code. This would open up quite a window of opportunity to those wanting to take advantage of clients who might be more vulnerable to such an approach.

Does the hon. member not fear that, if we adopt this bill, we might create another situation like the one we now face under the Unemployment Insurance Act, concerning the entitlement of related people working for the same employer, for example, and where there is something akin to harassment from Revenue Canada? In these cases, studies and inquiries might be more justified, but in others, they may not be. One thing is certain, this is time-consuming.

Does the hon. member not think that this bill, as presented, might subject the elderly to the difficult situation that UI recipients are now facing? Second, as I said, will we not be subjecting the elderly to a series of solicitations, due to the fact that some people could have a financial interest in communicating the lists of those concerned by the legislation?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I missed the first part of what he was saying but he spoke largely on the aspect of confidentiality. There is no question in my mind that is something we have to be careful of.

Obviously this country has a long history of trying to keep records of a personal nature confidential. I point to the problems that can occur when those things get out. In fact if memory serves, in Ontario a provincial minister resigned over that issue. There is no question that is something we have to be cautious of. It is an area I think the hon. member knows more about than I do. Having said those things I will leave it at that.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the specific issue before the House which

is Bill C-54. For that reason I want to take the opportunity to summarize the amendments and the purpose for them.

As we have heard from some during the course of this debate, these amendments do not reflect major policy initiatives. Instead, this bill deals with the improvements required to the affected acts to improve client service and administration.

Undoubtedly, the most significant of the changes is the amendment to the Old Age Security Act which will grant the Minister of Human Resources Development the discretion to waive renewable applications for guaranteed income supplements and spouse's allowance recipients. This is an obvious example of improved client service. It will make it possible in the future to reduce the paper burden for many seniors and reduce the number of seniors who do not receive their income supplements on time because they are late filing their renewal applications.

Next, are the changes to the old age security appeal system which will allow for a more efficient and effective appeal for those clients who are dissatisfied with a decision under the OAS Act. This new system should result in fewer decisions having to be appealed to the courts. It should allow clients to see a resolution to their appeals more quickly.

Another important group of amendments deal with expanded information disclosure. These amendments which affect all four acts being amended by Bill C-54 will improve co-ordination and administration of programs that are, out of necessity, becoming more interdependent.

For the first time as well important client databanks could be used to assist in investigations, prosecutions and extradition activities in relation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because of the restrictions on the circumstances under which such information can be released clients can still be assured of the government's commitment to protect personal information.

Also included in this group is an amendment which allows the Correctional Services Canada to have limited information about OAS and CPP benefits that are paid to inmates in federal institutions.

The next amendment I would like to address is the reintroduction of 12 months of retroactive benefits for those Canada pension plan retirement beneficiaries who apply after their 65th birthday. This will equal the retroactivity period for the old age security benefits as well as for other benefits provided under the Canada pension plan.

Also of significance to the fair and equitable treatment of pensioners is the amendment which would give the minister discretion to waive old age security overpayments that are caused by errors on the part of the department. This amendment mirrors a provision currently in the Canada pension plan and ensures that clients are not financially responsible for errors over which they have no control.

That summarizes what in my mind are the major amendments included in Bill C-54, but there are also a number of minor amendments of which I want to make mention. In some of these more minor amendments we really see the subtle changes that can be made to improve the way we do business in government. These improvements translate to better service to those persons affected by government legislation, in other words, to all of us at some point during our lives.

For instance, any employee in the Department of Human Resources Development involved in the administration of one of the acts will be able to take statutory declarations and affirmations not only for these programs but for other federal and provincial departments. This will save clients from having to go to more than one office for these services as now happens.

In addition, the OAS and CPP acts will allow for municipalities to be reimbursed directly for assistance that they provide to a benefit applicant while their application is being adjudicated. Currently the acts only permit for reimbursement to a provincial government which means that the province then has to reimburse the municipality. Removing the middle man, if that is what you want to refer to it as being, will certainly streamline administration.

Old age security and Canada pension plan clients will also be well served by an amendment to the administrative error and erroneous advice provisions. It would no longer be necessary for the client to complain in writing before the minister could take corrective action in cases where the department has made an error. Without this amendment the department cannot legally take corrective action when it finds that a client has lost benefit entitlement because of an error made by an employee. The client is required to contact the minister in writing before such errors are corrected.

This provision was not fair nor did it recognize the complexity of the legislation. Clients should not be expected to always realize when an error has been made. Now both sides, either the client or the administration, can be the catalyst which prompts corrective action.

Under the Old Age Security Act benefit overpayments can only be collected if the overpayment occurred in the last two years. This time limit is being removed to ensure that clients are not receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. It is only reasonable that a debt should not be waived just because of a certain length of time has past.

As we all know, the government as a whole must ensure that scarce financial resources go to those individuals for whom they are intended. There will be those individuals for whom repayment would cause hardship. This is already taken care of through a provision in the Old Age Security Act which gives the minister the authority to waive overpayments in certain circum-

stances. Only those individuals who can repay benefits are asked to do so.

I certainly have not covered all of the amendments. However I have summarized those that I feel will have the most significant impact on our pensioner population. I feel that this bill is a step in the right direction and that clients are the beneficiaries of the changes. As I am sure we are all aware, there is more that we can do and will be done as the efforts to improve the machinery of government move along.

I look forward to seeing further improvements in the not too distant future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on Bill C-54 which is before us today. He is talking about very technical but really minor housekeeping items to the social programs.

I am not sure if we can tackle this minor housekeeping with a whiskbroom. A farmer once said that after the cows have been in the barn for a long time, you cannot use a whiskbroom; sometimes you need to use a front end loader to clean up the mess. Maybe that is what we should be looking at today.

The member talked about old age security. The Reform Party has put forward proposals on several occasions during the election campaign and in this House regarding old age security. It has made some recommendations and shown actual savings in the area of $3.5 billion, keeping in mind that we feel very strongly that the program should be directed to those most in need in this country.

Can the member give us a specific example of what he thinks would be a way we could actually show some savings with that program?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested that a member from the west of Canada would talk about whiskbrooms. I guess he knows more about farming.

I am also quite surprised with the observations made by the speaker in the sense that he feels that in some ways this is a trite and insignificant piece of legislation. I am surprised this would come from a member opposite who in the party sense is always suggesting they are the ones who can discern in their wisdom what people are thinking.

I can safely tell the member opposite that despite what he feels about the triteness of this if he would follow what happens in his constituency office he would find that this delivery of service is a major factor. It is of great concern to seniors. To suggest that in some way dealing with this problem is using a whiskbroom when he would use some other farm device I find quite surprising.

I would ask him to consult with the seniors with whom he deals. I would ask him perhaps to have one of these consultation processes with the seniors whom he serves. I think he would find they would welcome these changes.

In dealing with government bureaucracy, and we all acknowledge there is a certain element, a continuum of bureaucracy, I think he will find that his constituent base will welcome these types of changes. The seniors are going to welcome the streamlining and flattening of the process somewhat and empowering those who make the decisions and collapsing the vertical portion of the system.

We are talking about the delivery of service to primarily a senior base. In the past, the have found the operation of the system to be very frustrating.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for not answering my question.

The interesting thing is that my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, has one of the highest percentages of senior citizens in the country. The hon. member should study that and pay attention to when the west speaks, because we do know what we are speaking of.

The hon. member spoke of consultation. No other party in this House has spent more time in consulting with the people of Canada than the Reform Party of Canada. Recently I held a series of townhall meetings in my riding. These are not just townhall meetings where we go out and speak; they are interactive workshops where people participate back and forth. In these series of meetings we identified the deficit and debt as the number one enemy in Canada right now.

We are looking at a social program system that spends some $80 billion a year. We are looking at interest payments of $40 billion to $44 billion a year. That is what is robbing the social safety net. I support some of the items in the bill wholeheartedly. I can say that we have to improve on the administration but I want specifics.

I will ask the member the same question. What can he and his party suggest that will save some money on social programs, specifically old age security?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member is on the cutting edge of consultation. Once again it would appear that members opposite are the only ones who in some way, as I stated earlier, are able to discern what the public wishes.

He stated that during recent townhall meetings in the west the number one issue was the debt and the deficit. At the same time

members opposite stated that during the election. This party on this side of the House dealt with that during the election and the finance minister is dealing with it now.

In terms of identifying issues I do not think members on that side of the House are in some way on the cutting edge of knowing what Canadians are thinking. I would agree to an extent that they may know what is going on in certain very limited regional areas of the west, but I do not think that in the mainstream of Canada they are able to discern what is on the minds of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that not only are there Reform Party of Canada members in western Canada. They are from coast to coast and we do have townhall meetings right across the country.

Can the member just give me one area? I think all of Canada should be able to come to any member of Parliament and ask for one area where money can be saved in a specific program.

For the third time I would like to ask the same question. Will the member identify one area in old age security where we can have substantive savings, and will he tell us the figure we would save?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a hallmark of members opposite that they do not like to speak about the legislation before the House. They would rather speak about their grand scheme of Canada and their identification through their unique patented processes called townhall meetings.

As a result of all the townhall meetings they are apparently having in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and other provinces, why does the member opposite not tell us the results of what Canadians are telling them in terms of what the number one issues of the day are?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Perhaps the member would like to speak to a point of order.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Standing Orders I understand that when members ask ministers of the crown questions in question period they do not necessarily have to answer. In debate and under questions and comments do members of Parliament have to answer?