House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Human RightsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Richmond B.C.

Liberal

Raymond Chan LiberalSecretary of State (Asia-Pacific)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Human rights is indeed a very big item in the government's foreign policy agenda. In all possible fora in multilateral institutions, Canada has never backed out from taking a very strong stand on human rights issues.

However we never believe that confrontation is the best way to go. Canada has been involved behind the scenes in many programs dealing with human rights issues in China, through CIDA, through co-operation, dialogues and so on. These actions will help the government in China to understand and respect human rights.

EmploymentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As stated in the green book on social security reform, in this age of ever changing technology and work environment training is key to getting and keeping a job.

In light of recent and pending layoffs in my riding, can the parliamentary secretary explain how this government will ensure that laid off employees obtain effective and timely retraining?

EmploymentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York North Ontario

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his concern about seasonal workers.

I would like to make it very clear that the key objectives of the social security review are to help Canadians get jobs and keep jobs, to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society and to do that in a sustainable manner.

In the green book we speak about employment enhancement programs that include training and upgrading. It is essential for us to upgrade the skills of the Canadian public so that we can compete in the ever competing world in the 21st century.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Wen Shizhen, governor of the province of Liaonning, People's Republic of China.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, as is customary on Thursday, I wish to ask the Leader of the Government in the House what the business of the House will be in the next few days.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I would now like to present to this House the weekly business statement.

This afternoon the House will continue its consideration of Bill C-54 respecting the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. If this is completed the House will revert to consideration of the departmental reorganization bills: C-46, industry; C-52, government services; and C-53, Canadian heritage. We will follow that with report stage and third reading of Bill C-36 regarding the Split Lake agreement.

Tomorrow the House will begin second reading of Bill C-55 regarding Yukon surface rights. If this is completed the House will return to the same back-up list I have set for today.

On Monday next the House will resume the debate on social security reform.

Also, I am hereby allotting Tuesday as an opposition day.

On Wednesday the House will resume its consideration of those uncompleted items I have already mentioned.

This completes my statement, Madam Speaker.

Ways And MeansOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Scarborough East Ontario

Liberal

Doug Peters LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion and explanatory notes relating to the implementation of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

October 20th, 1994 / 3 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-54 is particularly significant because it substantially changes some aspects of four pieces of legislation that are ultimately central to income support for the most disadvantaged in our society.

As the Official Opposition, we had an opportunity to say that we see in this bill a number of positive points but we still have three concerns which I will be happy to discuss with you.

Before being interrupted in a friendly way by our Speaker, I had explained to the hon. members that we were happy with two positive aspects of the bill and I was about to discuss the third point, which will give OAS and spouse's allowance recipients an avenue of administrative recourse without them having to appeal to another court. We agree with this effort to simplify administration. We are also pleased that this bill allows recipients to settle overpayments quickly and to avoid more red tape.

We have three main concerns with this bill. Our first concern lies at the centre of democratic life and concerns access to personal information that would be extended to other departments. This concern-that the bill before us allows other departments and agencies to access information on recipients-is the subject of an amendment to the bill.

It must be understood-and I think it is important for our viewers to understand it as well-that this bill adds to the list of departments and agencies that will have access to the information given by program beneficiaries. This list will grow so much that even Canada Post will have access to this information, although it has not been explained to us why Canada Post would need this type of information. We think there has been an oversight, a lack of accuracy which, in the long term, could lead to abuse.

The list of departments and agencies which will be able to access this information is also expanded. The result is that the Correctional Service of Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General and any other person designated as a health care professional will have access to that information.

No justification has been made for expanding that list. Yet, such a measure could lead to abuse and to violations of the principles of democracy.

I draw your attention to the fact that the Correctional Service will even be allowed to prosecute inmates who are pensioners to ensure that these people continue to pay off debts incurred in the past. We would have liked the act to provide more details where it authorizes any person designated by the minister as a health care professional to have access to information by name.

Why not be more specific? Why not say exactly what we are talking about? Why be so vague? You will agree with me that past experience has demonstrated the importance, for the legislator, to specify who, and in what specific circumstances, can have access to such information. I see the Minister of Revenue nodding his head. Heaven knows how important access to important information by name is for his department.

We would have liked this bill to provide some bench marks, to be more specific regarding the managers and the officials who will have access to such information by name, as it concerns the private lives of individuals. In fact, we know from past experience that failure to do so by the legislator results in abuse which, in turn, leads to representations before administrative tribunals or courts of law.

This is the reason for the amendment tabled by the hon. member, and I hope that this House will adopt it. In fact, I will read that amendment again, so that viewers can understand what the Bloc Quebecois is trying to do.

Our position is that we agree with the essence of this bill. We agree that it provides for a substantial reduction in administrative procedures. However, considering some of the concerns we have about the bill, we ask that:

"this House declines to give second reading reading to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it does not provide a penalty under the Criminal Code for the disclosure of personal information concerning beneficiaries to persons who are not legally authorized to such information pursuant to Access to Privileged Information."

There is quite a contradiction here. We have legislation that is intended to protect the privacy of Canadians, and we have legislation before the House today that fails to provide any mechanisms for laying charges or imposing formal sanctions, in the case of public employees who might be guilty of unauthorized disclosure of information.

You do not have to be a member of the Canadian public service to know that this has been known to occur in the past. Why did the minister not propose mechanisms to prevent such practices?

So this is a serious concern. Madam Speaker, this is a fundamental error which should be corrected, and that is what we are doing, as part of the responsibilities and duties we have as an Official Opposition that takes those duties very seriously.

Our second cause for concern is that clearly, Bill C-54, in addition to streamlining certain administrative procedures, reflects an austerity policy the government claims to support, an approach reflected in somewhat haphazard cuts of up to $7 billion over the next few years, cuts which, as they were in the past, will be at the expense of the less well-off in our society.

Our listeners and members of this House should recall that in the past, those who failed to apply for old age security benefits within the prescribed period could do so retroactively for up to a maximum of five years, which gave people considerable leeway.

Today, the government wants to reduce this period to one year. Aside from the somewhat shortsighted, financial considerations that might deprive Canadians of the basic right to get their pension benefits retroactively over a period of more than one year, there is no indication of what this is supposed to accomplish, since it is not a measure that will benefit Canadians.

The government is getting ready to put an end to the five-year retroactivity provision which is in force until this bill is passed. In an effort to balance its budget, the government wants to reduce, arbitrarily and without giving any explanation, retroactive payments to pensioners. It is estimated that up to 1,200,000 people availed themselves of this right to recover retroactively their Old Age Security pensions.

This is an important issue. There are many reasons why people may have to apply retroactively for old age pensions. Instead of getting five years of retroactive benefits they will only get one, and we believe that it is unfair. We are totally against it.

There is another administrative measure aimed at balancing the budget we disagree with because we believe that it is not in the best interests of our fellow citizens. Let us keep in mind that

when we are talking about Old Age Security, we are not talking about wealthy people.

We are talking for the most part about people who are not financially independent. We are talking about people who are depend largely on transfers from the government, namely Old Age Security.

Therefore, the other point about which the opposition is in disagreement with the government is the elimination of the deadline for the recovery of overpayments. We have to realize that, when you are dealing with social legislation, any kind of legislation under which civil servants, managers, must review applications, interpret the act and justify their decisions, human nature being what it is, it might happen that, even with the best of intentions-and we do not doubt the good intentions of civil servants in Quebec, in Ottawa or elsewhere-overpayments are made. It means that people are given rights they were not entitled to, in the strict sense of the law.

From now on, the government will be able to ask that money paid in excess be reimbursed and there will be no time limit for this; to use a legal expression, there will be no statute of limitations. In the past, when overpayments were made to recipients, we could not ask for the amounts owing to be remitted after two years had gone by. Today, the government is assuming the right-a right basically unprecedented in social law-to recover overpayments at any point in time.

This means that, under this legislation, if someone incurred a debt 15 years ago and an erroneous decision was made concerning this person, we could recover this money. I can see my hon. colleague nodding. I guess she agrees with me. It is always a pleasure to receive support from the opposition, a support as unusual as it is unsubstantial. No limit will be put on establishing overpayments. This is a practice that hardly seems to be in the interest of our fellow citizens.

We have concerns about another thing. We realize that this bill provides for an appeal procedure enabling our fellow citizens who receive old age security and a pension under the Canada Pension Plan to appeal, to go before an administrative tribunal and challenge decisions that were made and that they disagree with. Such review tribunals are commonplace, of course, in administrative and social law.

There are review tribunals for the CSST, for income security, for the motor vehicle insurance bureau, and that is how it should be. We are not concerned so much about-seeing that I have but one minute remaining, I will make this my conclusion, as I was about to close- the existence of appeal mechanisms, as about the minister having the power to discontinue the payments of benefits when no decision has been made under the appeal procedure.

Therefore, while recognizing that some administrative adjustments may be in order, we cannot support this bill without the amendment put forth by the Official Opposition, which would have the effect of really limiting the actions and powers of those who will be handling personal information data banks. So, we have every confidence that the government will approve the opposition's proposal. I thank you for the speaking time I was given.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to my colleague and I would have a question for him. Just now, he told us about $7 billion in cuts to the poorest people. I would like him to give us some alternatives to these cuts. Where else could one cut, except at the expense of the very poor? I would like the hon. member to give this government some alternatives.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Madam Speaker, as you see, this is a very relevant question, which shows us how deeply committed our colleague is. We have always had quite a clear position on this.

The opposition party operates on the principle that full employment has been possible in small countries which had all the instruments they needed to bring it about, but it is not possible in the Canadian context since two levels of government take action which is often contradictory.

We see now that countries with an unemployment rate of 3, 4 or 5 per cent, which is called frictional unemployment and is acceptable, are those which have acquired mechanisms for joint action and co-operation. They have been able to bring together around a table at the national level people from labour, management and professional corporations to set macro-economic objectives.

Of course, such a solution is not possible in the Canadian context because two levels of government are in competition without regard for efficiency.

The second solution that we think we can contribute concerns a thorny issue which is a disgrace for this government, namely family trusts. We know that plugging this loophole could save billions of dollars.

Finally, when it comes to corporate taxation, we see that companies pay less tax in Canada than in other OECD countries. We think that corporation taxation should be reviewed. If Mr. Martin were a courageous man-and we on this side of the House long ago realized that the Minister of Finance does not really qualify as courageous-he could have reviewed corporate taxation in February so that the government could collect the amounts which it is now lacking.

We have three approaches: one involves a political reconfiguration, one that will be possible when two sovereign states with all the powers they need can deal with each other as complete equals; this means sovereignty for Quebec and a redefinition of what English Canada should be. The second approach of course involves the tools at the finance minister's disposal, if he has political courage and integrity. Certainly,

when you form a national government as the Liberal Party does and you take money from your election fund so that your party can live, you get that money from the private sector and you have close ties to those people, so it is not easy for a finance minister to raise money for his party and also to revise the tax system in favour of the less fortunate. However, in Quebec, we do not have that problem, since we have passed legislation on democratic financing.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my colleague if reducing the deadline from five to one year indicates, in his opinion, that the government is contemplating cuts to retirement plans?

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the key question asked by the hon. member for Lévis. I would like to point out that the hon. member for Lévis has always shown affection and concern for the less fortunate, for whom he has been one of the most distinguished spokespersons since he was elected last October. I want to commend him for that.

Our concern about reducing the deadline from five to one year is, who will pay for this? Who can claim retroactively an OAS cheque or a cheque-

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Sorry, sir, but your time is up.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, any sane, reasonable scrutiny of this bill would very quickly indicate to almost any informed reader that this has to be what has become known in Parliament as comma legislation, that is to say legislation which seeks to make certain technical changes but substantively has very little impact.

There is a need for comma legislation, technical legislation, to tidy up the business, to make it of more service to the people it is purporting to serve. That is the reality, this is in effect comma legislation. It is legislation that will seek to do a number of important but relatively minor things in the scheme of things.

That is not to say they should not be done. I support the bill and in a moment I will state two or three reasons why I support the bill. However, if we accepted as the reality of the bill and then listen to some of my friends opposite, we would wonder if we are both talking about the same piece of legislation.

As I listened to a bit a of the debate this morning for some strange reason I found myself deciding that what I needed to do was reread an old poem that I learned and taught in high school called "Matilda".

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

An hon. member

"Waltzing Matilda"?

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

No, not "Waltzing Matilda", the other "Matilda". I will not read it all, just a couple of lines that are very much to the point. Matilda, growing tired of play and finding she was left alone, went tiptoe to the telephone and summoned the fire brigade.

We know the story. It was a false alarm. There was no fire. She did it so many times that a few weeks later when her aunt was away at the theatre, that night a fire did break out: "You should have heard Matilda shout. You should have heard her scream and bawl". We know the rest: "For every time she shouted fire, they only shouted little liar". They did not believe her because too often she had used the dramatic overstatement to draw attention to her situation. Why did they not believe her? Along the way by overstating the simple and the untrue she had worn out her credibility.

In a more modern idiom, she was Chicken Little: "The sky is falling. These big bad Liberals over there want to put a comma in the legislation. The sky is falling, the world is coming to an end". That is what we have been hearing for the last couple of days.

I say to my friends in the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois that I spent some time in opposition provincially and federally. If they want to check the record I said some fairly dramatic things from time to time. One has to learn that there is a time for making dramatic statements and there is a time for standing up and calling things exactly as they are.

Let us look at this particular bill. This is no occasion for pulling your hair or threatening the end of reality or saying the sky is falling or screaming fire when there is no fire. There is no fire here at all.

The Unemployment Insurance Act would be amended here, for example. Listen how drastically this foul government wants to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, then decide whether the sky is falling.

Bill C-54 has no impact whatsoever on eligibility criteria or benefit structure of the UI program. What else is there in the program other than the benefits and the eligibility? It has no impact on those matters at all. Here is what it would do, though. It does contain one little amendment, giving the minister the discretion to disclose UI client information only to the commissioner of the RCMP for the purpose of conducting investigations and prosecution, for purposes of ensuring compliance with the law. That is the amendment. That is the sky is falling amend-

ment we have been hearing about for the last day or so in this particular bill.

On the proposed amendment in this bill to the Children's Special Allowance Act, no change again in eligibility criteria or the benefit structure of the CSA program-not a wit of change proposed in this.

There are two amendments though, both advanced for reasons of administration. I believe hon. members are familiar with those. I can read them into the record if they wish.

Let us come to the question of changes for OAS, old age security, and the Canada pension plan. Again we read that the government's sin here is in finding ways to make it a little less onerous for the people out there who are receiving these benefits, instead of having them fill in forms ad nauseam every year as they are required to do now in order to qualify for those supplements. That is what the bill is about. You would wonder if you listened to some of the speeches.

The bill is what I called earlier some comma legislation. I have some advice to give to my friends in all parties including myself. Save the fire call for when there is a fire. When there is some legislation here that we have some real discomfort with then get up and say so. Then people will recognize that we know what we are talking about. Screaming fire when there is no fire creates false insecurities out there. People are asking: "What are they doing to the old age security?".

I will tell them what we are doing with the old age security. I will tell the people watching exactly what we are doing to the old age security in this bill. Instead of that silly form people have to fill in every year, we are going to see to it that they have to fill it in less often, sometimes only once. That is what the bill is about.

What are we doing to the UI? If somebody is out there trying to beat the law, we are going to make it harder for them. If this bill passes, we are going to allow the commissioner of the RCMP to have access to client information for the purpose of prosecuting a person if they are in that particular category.

I identify with those objectives. I have no difficulty at all with those objectives. That is why it gives me great honour and pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-54, because when passed the amendments here will directly benefit and assist over 4 million Canadian seniors, in particular the 1.4 million seniors who are currently receiving the spouse's allowance or the guaranteed income supplement, commonly known as the GIS.

The proposed amendments will allow these seniors, the majority of whom are women, to receive the benefits to which they are entitled with a minimum of red tape. Let us look at a few of the features of the programs we are talking about. Then let us look at why these amendments although small in one way are nevertheless important.

The foundation of the retirement system is the old age security benefit. The OAS pension is paid to individuals 65 years of age and over who meet certain residence requirements. That benefit though is not enough for certain seniors. That is the reason we have additional benefits which are income tested.

The GIS is a monthly income tested benefit payable to seniors with low income, while the spouse's allowance is a monthly income tested benefit payable to the 60 to 64-year old spouse of an OAS pensioner as well as to low income widowed persons in that same age bracket of 60 to 64 years.

The amount of these additional benefits is determined on a sliding scale of income with the maximum paid only to those pensioners with no income other than the basic old age security pension. While having outside income can reduce the amount of the supplement or the allowance, this reduction does not completely offset the benefit since only one dollar of supplement is lost for every two of other income. This ensures that pensioners will be better off for having saved and prepared for retirement.

The GIS and the spouse's allowance are both income tested benefits, and so they are normally based on a recipient's income in the preceding calendar year in accordance with the Income Tax Act. For example, the benefits for the period from April 1994 to March 1995 are based on the income for 1993.

Each year before the benefit can be calculated and paid in April, seniors must fill out a renewal application, including a complete statement of income. Of course, most seniors also fill out their income tax form at about that time with the very same information that they provide on their annual GIS application form.

There in a nutshell is an example of unnecessary government red tape, where the senior sits down, paper in hand, fills out a form putting in certain information related to income and mails it to the income tax people; then goes over to the other end of the table and gets another form, using the same pen and putting down the same answers to the same questions, then mails it off to the old age security. They wind up in offices almost across the corridor in Ottawa or wherever these forms go.

While they may appear so, these two systems do not operate in isolation. The income security branch of Human Resources Development Canada pays the benefit initially on the basis of the GIS application. Later on, usually in the fall, it verifies the income that the client filled out on the application with the assessed income figures received from Revenue Canada to determine if the payments to be made are still correct. However, pensioners often very rightly wonder why they have to give the

information twice and why it takes so long to cross-check the information.

The amendments to this bill will serve to eliminate some of that duplication so that in the future not all seniors will have to fill out the same information twice for two government departments. As well, it will simplify the process of transferring information between the departments, which is already allowed by legislation anyway.

Let me emphasize that the desire to improve and simplify administration is not confined to one department or set of programs. Last year, for example, Revenue Canada introduced three new tax returns for people with straightforward tax situations and one of these returns was for seniors who meet certain requirements regarding age, level and type of income. That return is mailed to people over 65 who have been retired for at least a year with income under $50,000 and receiving most of their income from pensions and investments and receiving old age security benefits.

The simplified tax return which I was just mentioning has large print and provides preprinted amounts for old age security, guaranteed income supplement benefits and Canada and Quebec pension plan benefits. Any lines from the standard tax form that are not needed by seniors are deleted and the accompanying guide is easy to read with large print.

I realize that if I read very much more of this I am going to have everybody sound asleep, including myself, because it is such ongoing straightforward logical information. I thought I would read just a little of it to demonstrate to the House that while some of the speakers have almost had cardiac arrests telling us about the pitfalls of this legislation, the reality is that it could not introduce a mild headache let alone a heart attack.

This is a fairly simple bill. Let us get on with it and allow the government to produce the enabling legislation to simplify those forms for senior citizens and the other matters which I have outlined here, administrivia but necessary nevertheless.

The second point, to reiterate, to all of us here in this House including myself is save the fire screams for fires. I spent slightly more time in opposition than I did in government and so I am very much committed to the role of opposition in government. I happen to believe very firmly that the less effective an opposition is the less effective government is.

I understand my friends from Elk Island and Okanagan Centre, I understand that they want to muse on the possibility of when I will be back in opposition.

I not only happen to accept that possibility but in time would look forward to it. If it is anything that is more debilitating than too long in opposition, it is too long in government. That is the very point I am trying to make to my friends. Good government consists of a good government bench and a good opposition bench as well. To put it differently, if we do not have a good opposition we do not have as effective a government.

One of the mixes of this particular House which is different than any other chamber that I have been in, both other sessions here and in the chamber in Newfoundland where I had the privilege of sitting for 10 years, is that we have a completely new mix in terms of a party, the Reform Party, which heretofore had only one seat in the House and the other, the official opposition, which heretofore had six or seven seats in the House. Almost the entire opposition bench, not to mention a good many of the government bench, is here for the first time. That is refreshing in the context of not getting bogged down in hanging on to all the old things.

It is a particular challenge when one has to come in here on the day one arrives and help make good government. Helping make good government includes being appropriately critical.

Some people talk about the free vote. We have free votes. I am not being tongue in cheek. We have free votes as do all the other parties. We are now finding, having been here a year, that most of our free votes take place in caucus where they should take place. That is why we are a party and not a conglomerate of 52 members or 54 members or 170 members. We are party because our real fights take place. If you saw the exchange, Madam Speaker, I had with a minister in a caucus yesterday you would wonder why the two of us are still in the same party.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Tell us about it.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

It will cost you but I probably will.

To conclude on this point because it is important for me as a parliamentarian, there are going to be vociferous, strenuous debates in this House. I participated in some of them. Whether colleagues on this side or colleagues on the opposite side, in order to know where they are coming from we have to know if they are Matildas or not. We have to know if they scream fire all the time even when there is no fire. We have to know whether they flag something when it really needs to be flagged.

I say to those people in the Bloc and in the Reform Party as well as in my own party that when the day arrives when they spot something genuinely wrong with the legislation I want to be the first to know. I hope they will count me as enough of a friend to tell me so I can be on the side of right.

Sometimes we engage in partisan rhetoric but there comes a time when you cannot stand with your party because something is genuinely at odds with what you believe. To have that kind of rapport with parliamentarians we have to know that they are not a bunch of Matildas, they are not a bunch of Chicken Littles,

they are not a bunch of people who scream when there is absolutely no need for screaming.

I have much pleasure in supporting the bill and invite hon. members of the House to do likewise.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I followed with interest the presentation of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. He had the typical Liberal approach to problems, don't worry, be happy. He was even discussing cardiac arrest. I am sure if he had a cardiac arrest he would still be saying: "Don't worry, be happy, there is no problem here. Do not bother calling the doctor. We are just fine and if we are not who cares".

He was saying there is really not much in this bill, there is no change. There are a couple of little administrative things here and there. I am quoting him close enough that he will not protest. He is saying there are some little minor administrative changes but basically this bill leaves everything as is with regard to OAS and CPP and the other issues that it deals with.

I would suggest that is probably the problem. That is why we are speaking rather energetically about this bill. It is lack of action. We have seen that from this Liberal government ever since it took office: "We are not going to do anything, no changes. We will diddle around a little, change the administration, have the appearance on the outside as though we are doing something, but everything continues as the status quo".

The hon. member said we should not be suggesting the sky is falling and let us not be alarmists. Perhaps the sky is not falling but I assure the House the foundation is crumbling away and the whole building will fall in on itself.

The government talked about studying. It is becoming almost gritting for one to hear the ongoing remarks that we are going to study this or investigate that. Right now we are having a conference on health but the players are not there. We have talked about fish but there are no fish so we are going to study that. We are studying peacekeeping and defence yet we have no plan. Now we are diddling around with OAS and CPP but we are not really coming to grips with the issue. The foundation is still crumbling.

I wonder how we can study so much and still be so unintelligent and not know what to do about the problem.

I suggest to the member, rather than lecturing the Reform Party about free votes, he look at the seriousness of the situation and be concerned about his constituents who may not have OAS or CPP because while he is looking for the sky to fall, the foundation is crumbling away beneath him.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to respond to the fact that we have a younger generation coming up that has no expectation whatsoever of reaping any benefits from OAS or from CPP. This generation, our generation, has been irresponsible. We have not balanced our budgets. We are creating a debt that is going to be placed on our children that they will never be able to pay. They will not even be able to sustain the social programs that we enjoy. That is unconscionable.

I hope that the hon. member will become a little alarmed and want to change some things to provide a better future for his children and his grandchildren.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, I want to get this glass just about half full so I can demonstrate something. I say the glass is half full.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

It's leaking.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

The member from Kindersley-Lloydminster wants to insist it is half empty.

Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

It's going down. There is less now than there was before.